    [Senate Hearing 113-515, Part 7]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                     S. Hrg. 113-515, Pt. 7

                 CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   ----------

           JANUARY 8, JANUARY 28, FEBRUARY 11, AND FEBRUARY 25, 2014

                                   ----------

                               Serial No. J-113-1

                                   ----------

                                     Part 7

                                   ----------

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                                     S. Hrg. 113-515, Pt. 7

                 CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

           JANUARY 8, JANUARY 28, FEBRUARY 11, AND FEBRUARY 25, 2014

                                   __________

                               Serial No. J-113-1

                                   __________

                                     Part 7

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    24-284 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2017
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                      PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking
    CHUCK SCHUMER, New York                  Member
    DICK DURBIN, Illinois                ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
    AL FRANKEN, Minnesota                JOHN CORNYN, Texas
    CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
    RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      TED CRUZ, Texas
    MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii                 JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
               Kristine Lucius, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
            Kolan Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                          JANUARY 8, 2014, 10:02 A.M.

                        STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

                                                                       Page

    Durbin, Hon. Dick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois
      presenting Nancy J. Rosenstengel, Nominee to be District Judge
      for the Southern District of Illinois..........................     6
    Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa......     8
        prepared statement...........................................   293
    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.     7
        prepared statement...........................................   288
    Schumer, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York
      presenting John P. Carlin, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney
      General, and Debo P. Adegbile, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney
      General........................................................     9
        prepared statement...........................................   290

                                   PRESENTERS

    Baldwin, Hon. Tammy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin
      presenting James D. Peterson, Nominee to be District Judge for
      the Western District of Wisconsin..............................     3
    Johnson, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin
      presenting James D. Peterson, Nominee to be District Judge for
      the Western District of Wisconsin..............................     1
    Warren, Hon. Elizabeth, a U.S. Senator from the State of
      Massachusetts presenting Indira Talwani, Nominee to be District
      Judge for the District of Massachusetts........................     4

                           STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES

    Witness List.....................................................    33
    Adegbile, Debo P., Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General, U.S.
      Department of Justice..........................................    12
        biographical information.....................................    59
        prepared statement...........................................   298
        questionnaire update letter, January 6, 2014.................   122
    Carlin, John P., Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General, U.S.
      Department of Justice..........................................    11
        biographical information.....................................    34
        prepared statement...........................................   296
        questionnaire update letter, January 6, 2014.................    58
    Peterson, James D., Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      Western District of Wisconsin..................................    13
        biographical information.....................................   125
        questionnaire update letter, January 6, 2014.................   165
    Rosenstengel, Nancy J., Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      Southern District of Illinois..................................    14
        biographical information.....................................   175
        questionnaire update letter, January 6, 2014.................   216
    Talwani, Indira, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of Massachusetts......................................    15
        biographical information.....................................   230
        questionnaire update letter, January 6, 2014.................   277

                                   QUESTIONS

    Questions submitted to Debo P. Adegbile by:
        Senator Cornyn...............................................   330
        Senator Flake................................................   336
        Senator Grassley.............................................   300
        Follow-up questions submitted by Senator Grassley............   322
        Senator Lee..................................................   333
        Senator Sessions.............................................   327
    Questions submitted to John P. Carlin by Senator Grassley........   312
    Questions submitted to Nominees James D. Peterson, Nancy J.
      Rosenstengel, and Indira Talwani by Senator Cruz...............   335
    Questions submitted to James D. Peterson by Senator Grassley.....   316
    Questions submitted to Nancy J. Rosenstengel by Senator Grassley.   318
    Questions submitted to Indira Talwani by Senator Grassley........   320

                                    ANSWERS

    Responses of Debo P. Adegbile to questions submitted by:
        Senator Cornyn...............................................   379
        Senator Flake................................................   370
        Senator Grassley.............................................   348
        Follow-up questions submitted by Senator Grassley............   448
        Senator Lee..................................................   376
        Senator Sessions.............................................   372
    Responses of John P. Carlin to questions submitted by Senator
      Grassley.......................................................   338
    Responses of James D. Peterson to questions submitted by:
        Senator Cruz.................................................   463
        Senator Grassley.............................................   459
    Responses of Nancy J. Rosenstengel to questions submitted by:
        Senator Cruz.................................................   469
        Senator Grassley.............................................   465
    Responses of Indira Talwani to questions submitted by:
        Senator Cruz.................................................   476
        Senator Grassley.............................................   472

                LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO DEBO P. ADEGBILE

    American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), January 6,
      2014,
      letter.........................................................   495
    American Bar Association, January 13, 2014, letter...............   536
    Bergeron, Katherine, and Leo I. Higdon, Jr., January 6, 2014,
      letter.........................................................   497
    Chenault, Kenneth, January 7, 2014, letter.......................   513
    Days, Drew S., III, November 15, 2013, letter....................   489
    Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), January 6, 2014, letter.........   537
    Godosky, David, Esq., January 7, 2014, letter....................   515
    Hertz, Randy, December 19, 2013, letter..........................   491
    Jeffries, Hon. Hakeem S., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New York, January 7, 2014, letter.....................   517
    Johnson, Boyd M., III, January 8, 2014, letter...................   531
    Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The, et al.,
      January 7, 2014, letter........................................   519
    National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
      (NAACP), January 7, 2014, letter...............................   526
    National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), January 6, 2014,
      letter.........................................................   501
    National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), January 6, 2014, letter...   505
    National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, January 7, 2014, letter.....   511
    National Women's Law Center, January 6, 2014, letter.............   499
    Panarella, Christopher C., and Nicholas J. Panarella, January 7,
      2014, letter...................................................   522
    People For the American Way, January 7, 2014, letter.............   509
    Raskin, David, January 7, 2014, letter...........................   524
    Schneiderman, Eric T., Attorney General, State of New York,
      January 6, 2014, letter........................................   503
    Thompson, Kenneth P., January 10, 2014, letter...................   532
    Vera Institute of Justice, January 8, 2014, letter...............   530
    Waxman, Seth P., January 3, 2014, letter.........................   492
    Wells, Theodore V., Jr., January 6, 2014, letter.................   507
    Wilson, Benjamin F., et al., January 8, 2014, letter.............   528
    Zilly, Pamela D., January 3, 2014, letter........................   493

                 LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO JOHN P. CARLIN

    Chertoff, Michael, et al., December 13, 2013, letter.............   479
    DeRosa, Mary B., January 7, 2014, letter.........................   487
    Heymann, Philip B., December 18, 2013, letter....................   481
    Morell, Michael, October 27, 2013, letter........................   478
    Murphy, Timothy, December 18, 2013, letter.......................   482
    Rowan, J. Patrick, January 3, 2014, letter.......................   485
    Vladeck, Stephen I., December 20, 2013, letter...................   483

                LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO JAMES D. PETERSON

    American Bar Association, November 8, 2013, letter...............   539

              LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL

    American Bar Association, November 8, 2013, letter...............   541

                 LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO INDIRA TALWANI

    American Bar Association, September 24, 2013, letter.............   543
    National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA), January
      8, 2014, letter................................................   545

                    MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New
      York,
        prepared statement with regard to Debo P. Adegbile, Nominee
          to be Assistant Attorney General...........................   548
        prepared statement with regard to John P. Carlin, Nominee to
          be Assistant Attorney General..............................   547
    Kirk, Hon. Mark, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois,
      letter with regard to Nancy Rosenstengel, Nominee to be a U.S.
      District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois, January
      8, 2014........................................................   549
    Phelps, Timothy, The Washington Post, ``Justice's Civil Rights
      Nominee Has Resume That Includes `Sesame Street' and Voting
      Rights,'' January 2, 2014, article.............................   551
    Prince, Zenitha, The Afro-American, ``Debo Adegbile Nominated for
      Nation's Top Civil Rights Post,'' November 17, 2013, article,
      as cited in New Pittsburgh Courier.............................   554

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                          JANUARY 28, 2014, 10:05 A.M.

                         STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE MEMBER

    Flake, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona.......   565

                                   PRESENTER

    McCain, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona
      presenting Hon. Steven Paul Logan, Nominee to be District Judge
      for the District of Arizona; John Joseph Tuchi, Nominee to be
      District Judge for the District of Arizona; Diane J. Humetewa,
      Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Arizona;
      Rosemary Marquez, Nominee to be District Judge for the District
      Of Arizona; Hon. Douglas L. Rayes, Nominee to be District Judge
      for the District of Arizona; and Hon. James Alan Soto, Nominee
      to be District Judge for the District of Arizona...............   558

                           STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES

    Witness List.....................................................   575
    Humetewa, Diane J., Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of Arizona............................................   563
        biographical information.....................................   683
        questionnaire update letter, January 6, 2014.................   750
    Logan, Hon. Steven Paul, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for
      the District of Arizona........................................   561
        biographical information.....................................   576
        questionnaire update letter, January 6, 2014.................   624
    Marquez, Rosemary, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of Arizona............................................   563
        biographical information.....................................   793
        questionnaire update letter, January 3, 2012.................   833
        questionnaire update letter, January 6, 2014.................   824
    Rayes, Hon. Douglas L., Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of Arizona............................................   564
        biographical information.....................................   843
        questionnaire update letter, January 6, 2014.................   903
    Soto, Hon. James Alan, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of Arizona............................................   565
        biographical information.....................................   937
        questionnaire update letter, January 6, 2014.................   985
    Tuchi, John Joseph, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of Arizona............................................   562
        biographical information.....................................   635
        questionnaire update letter, January 6, 2014.................   674

                                   QUESTIONS

    Questions submitted to all Nominees by Senator Cruz..............  1009
    Questions submitted to Diane J. Humetewa by Senator Grassley.....  1000
    Questions submitted to Hon. Steven Paul Logan by Senator Grassley   995
    Questions submitted to Rosemary Marquez by Senator Grassley......  1002
    Questions submitted to Hon. Douglas L. Rayes by Senator Grassley.  1004
    Questions submitted to Hon. James Alan Soto by Senator Grassley..  1007
    Questions submitted to John Joseph Tuchi by Senator Grassley.....   997

                                    ANSWERS

    Responses of Diane J. Humetewa to questions submitted by:
        Senator Cruz.................................................  1028
        Senator Grassley.............................................  1024

    Responses of Hon. Steven Paul Logan to questions submitted by:
        Senator Cruz.................................................  1014
        Senator Grassley.............................................  1010
    Responses of Rosemary Marquez to questions submitted by:
        Senator Cruz.................................................  1034
        Senator Grassley.............................................  1030
    Responses of Hon. Douglas L. Rayes to questions submitted by:
        Senator Cruz.................................................  1043
        Senator Grassley.............................................  1036
    Responses of Hon. James Alan Soto to questions submitted by:
        Senator Cruz.................................................  1050
        Senator Grassley.............................................  1046
    Responses of John Joseph Tuchi to questions submitted by:
        Senator Cruz.................................................  1022
        Senator Grassley.............................................  1016

               LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO DIANE J. HUMETEWA

    American Bar Association, September 20, 2013, letter.............  1059
    Charlton, Paul K., January 23, 2014, letter......................  1061
    Gila River Indian Community, September 26, 2013, letter..........  1067
    Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, December 11, 2013, letter.......  1073
    Native American Bar Association of Arizona (NABA-AZ), January 23,
      2014, letter...................................................  1063
    National Native American Bar Association, January 26, 2014,
      letter.........................................................  1065
    Norris, Ned, Jr., October 29, 2013, letters......................  1069

             LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. STEVEN PAUL LOGAN

    American Bar Association, September 20, 2013, letter.............  1053

                LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO ROSEMARY MARQUEZ

    American Bar Association, June 24, 2011, letter..................  1074

              LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. DOUGLAS L. RAYES

    American Bar Association, September 20, 2013, letter.............  1076

              LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. JAMES ALAN SOTO

    American Bar Association, December 20, 2013, letter..............  1078

               LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO JOHN JOSEPH TUCHI

    American Bar Association, September 20, 2013, letter.............  1055
    Native American Bar Association of Arizona (NABA-AZ), January 23,
      2014, letter...................................................  1057

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                          FEBRUARY 11, 2014, 9:01 A.M.

                        STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

    Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of
      Connecticut....................................................  1081
    Graham, Hon. Lindsey, a U.S. Senator from the State of South
      Carolina presenting Hon. Bruce Hendricks, Nominee to be
      District Judge for the District of South Carolina..............  1081
    Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa......  1082
        prepared statement...........................................  1379
    Schumer, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York,
        prepared statement...........................................  1378

                                   PRESENTERS

    Nelson, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from the State of Florida
      presenting Hon. Robin Rosenbaum, Nominee to be Circuit Judge
      for the Eleventh Circuit.......................................  1097
    Rubio, Hon. Marco, a U.S. Senator from the State of Florida
      presenting Hon. Robin Rosenbaum, Nominee to be Circuit Judge
      for the Eleventh Circuit.......................................  1088
    Scott, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina
      presenting Hon. Bruce Hendricks, Nominee to be District Judge
      for the District of South Carolina.............................  1085
    Warren, Hon. Elizabeth, a U.S. Senator from the State of
      Massachusetts presenting Mark Mastroianni, Nominee to be
      District Judge for the District of Massachusetts...............  1083

                           STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES

    Witness List.....................................................  1105
    Caldwell, Leslie, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General, U.S.
      Department of Justice..........................................  1092
        biographical information.....................................  1334
        prepared statement...........................................  1376
    Hendricks, Hon. Bruce, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of South Carolina.....................................  1091
        biographical information.....................................  1195
        questionnaire update letter, January 10, 2014................  1256
    Mastroianni, Mark, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of Massachusetts......................................  1091
        biographical information.....................................  1272
        questionnaire update letter, January 6, 2014.................  1323
    Rosenbaum, Hon. Robin, Nominee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
      Eleventh Circuit...............................................  1086
        biographical information.....................................  1106
        questionnaire update letter, January 6, 2014.................  1175

                                   QUESTIONS

    Questions submitted to Leslie Caldwell by:
        Senator Feinstein............................................  1383
        Senator Grassley.............................................  1392
    Questions submitted to Nominees Hon. Bruce Hendricks, Mark
      Mastroianni, and Hon. Robin Rosenbaum by Senator Cruz..........  1396
    Questions submitted to Hon. Bruce Hendricks by Senator Grassley..  1388
    Questions submitted to Mark Mastroianni by Senator Grassley......  1390
    Questions submitted to Hon. Robin Rosenbaum by Senator Grassley..  1385

                                    ANSWERS

    Responses of Leslie Caldwell to questions submitted by:
        Senator Senator Feinstein....................................  1434
        Senator Grassley.............................................  1427
    Responses of Hon. Bruce Hendricks to questions submitted by:
        Senator Senator Cruz.........................................  1416
        Senator Grassley.............................................  1411
    Responses of Mark Mastroianni to questions submitted by:
        Senator Senator Cruz.........................................  1423
        Senator Grassley.............................................  1418
    Responses of Hon. Robin Rosenbaum to questions submitted by:
        Senator Senator Cruz.........................................  1407
        Senator Grassley.............................................  1397

                LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO LESLIE CALDWELL

    Ashley, Grant D., et al., January 31, 2014, letter...............  1451
    Bayless, David, et al., January 21, 2014, letter.................  1449
    Byrne, Lawrence, February 18, 2014, letter.......................  1446
    Gorelick, Jamie, et al., December 30, 2013, letter...............  1443

              LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. BRUCE HENDRICKS

    American Bar Association, June 27, 2013, letter..................  1439

                LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO MARK MASTROIANNI

    American Bar Association, September 24, 2013, letter.............  1441

              LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. ROBIN ROSENBAUM

    American Bar Association, November 8, 2013, letter...............  1437

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                         FEBRUARY 25, 2014, 10:05 A.M.

                        STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

    Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas........  1454
    Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota.....  1453

                                   PRESENTERS

    Kaine, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia
      presenting
      Hon. M. Hannah Lauck, Nominee to be District Judge for the
      Eastern District of Virginia...................................  1457
    Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the
      District of Columbia presenting Tanya S. Chutkan, Nominee to be
      District Judge for the District of Columbia....................  1460
    Udall, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico
      presenting John Charles Cruden, Nominee to be Assistant
      Attorney General,
      U.S. Department of Justice.....................................  1455
    Warner, Hon. Mark R., a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia
      presenting Hon. M. Hannah Lauck, Nominee to be District Judge
      for the Eastern District of Virginia...........................  1456
    Warren, Hon. Elizabeth, a U.S. Senator from the State of
      Massachusetts presenting Hon. Leo T. Sorokin, Nominee to be
      District Judge for the District of Massachusetts...............  1458

                           STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES

    Witness List.....................................................  1473
    Chutkan, Tanya S., Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of Columbia...........................................  1465
        biographical information.....................................  1536
    Costa, Hon. Gregg Jeffrey, Nominee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for
      the Fifth Circuit..............................................  1461
        biographical information.....................................  1474
    Cruden, John Charles, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General,
      U.S. Department of Justice.....................................  1468
        biographical information.....................................  1720
        prepared statement...........................................  1753
    Lauck, Hon. M. Hannah, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      Eastern District of Virginia...................................  1466
        biographical information.....................................  1574
    Sorokin, Hon. Leo T., Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of Massachusetts......................................  1467
        biographical information.....................................  1644

                                   QUESTIONS

    Questions submitted to Nominees Tanya S. Chutkan, Hon. Gregg
      Jeffrey Costa, Hon. M. Hannah Lauck, and Hon. Leo T. Sorokin by
      Senator Cruz...................................................  1770
    Questions submitted to Tanya S. Chutkan by Senator Grassley......  1759
    Questions submitted to Hon. Gregg Jeffrey Costa by Senator
      Grassley.......................................................  1755
    Questions submitted to John Charles Cruden by:
        Senator Cornyn...............................................  1768
        Senator Grassley.............................................  1765
    Questions submitted to Hon. M. Hannah Lauck by Senator Grassley..  1761
    Questions submitted to Hon. Leo T. Sorokin by Senator Grassley...  1763

                                    ANSWERS

    Responses of Tanya S. Chutkan to questions submitted by:
        Senator Cruz.................................................  1788
        Senator Grassley.............................................  1784
    Responses of Hon. Gregg Jeffrey Costa to questions submitted by:
        Senator Cruz.................................................  1781
        Senator Grassley.............................................  1771
    Responses of John Charles Cruden to questions submitted by:
        Senator Cornyn...............................................  1814
        Senator Grassley.............................................  1807
    Responses of Hon. M. Hannah Lauck to questions submitted by:
        Senator Cruz.................................................  1796
        Senator Grassley.............................................  1790
    Responses of Hon. Leo T. Sorokin to questions submitted by:
        Senator Cruz.................................................  1803
        Senator Grassley.............................................  1799

                LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO TANYA S. CHUTKAN

    American Bar Association, December 20, 2013, letter..............  1820

            LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. GREGG JEFFREY COSTA

    American Bar Association, December 20, 2013, letter..............  1818

              LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO JOHN CHARLES CRUDEN

    Altenburg, John D., Jr., February 24, 2014, letter...............  1845
    Askman, David F., et al., February 24, 2014, letter..............  1846
    Balta, Wayne S., February 19, 2014, letter.......................  1840
    Baker, Larry C., et al., February 20, 2014, letter...............  1842
    Determan, Sara-Ann, et al., February 24, 2014, letter............  1853
    Dinkins, Carol E., February 3, 2014, letter......................  1826
    Edmonds, Elizabeth A., February 24, 2014, letter.................  1855
    Fulton, C. Scott, February 24, 2014, letter......................  1856
    Penny, William L., et al., February 18, 2014, letter.............  1837
    Percival, Robert V., et al., February 17, 2014, letter...........  1828
    Suter, William K., February 24, 2014, letter.....................  1858

              LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. M. HANNAH LAUCK

    American Bar Association, December 20, 2013, letter..............  1822

               LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. LEO T. SOROKIN

    American Bar Association, December 20, 2013, letter..............  1824

                         ALPHABETICAL LIST OF NOMINEES

    Adegbile, Debo P., Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General, U.S.
      Department of Justice..........................................    12
    Caldwell, Leslie, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General, U.S.
      Department of Justice..........................................  1092
    Carlin, John P., Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General, U.S.
      Department of Justice..........................................    11
    Chutkan, Tanya S., Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of Columbia...........................................  1465
    Costa, Hon. Gregg Jeffrey, Nominee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for
      the Fifth Circuit..............................................  1461
    Cruden, John Charles, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General,
      U.S. Department of Justice.....................................  1468
    Hendricks, Hon. Bruce, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of South Carolina.....................................  1091
    Humetewa, Diane J., Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of Arizona............................................   563
    Lauck, Hon. M. Hannah, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      Eastern District of Virginia...................................  1466
    Logan, Hon. Steven Paul, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for
      the District of Arizona........................................   561
    Marquez, Rosemary, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of Arizona............................................   563
    Mastroianni, Mark, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of Massachusetts......................................  1091
    Peterson, James D., Nominee to be a U.S. District Judge for the
      Western District of Wisconsin..................................    13
    Rayes, Hon. Douglas L., Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of Arizona............................................   564
    Rosenbaum, Hon. Robin, Nominee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
      Eleventh Circuit...............................................  1086
    Rosenstengel, Nancy J., Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      Southern District of Illinois..................................    14
    Sorokin, Hon. Leo T., Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of Massachusetts......................................  1467
    Soto, Hon. James Alan, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of Arizona............................................   565
    Talwani, Indira, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of Massachusetts......................................    15
    Tuchi, John Joseph, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the
      District of Arizona............................................   562

        NOMINATIONS OF JOHN P. CARLIN, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
     GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; DEBO P. ADEGBILE, NOMINEE TO BE
                                   ASSISTANT
       ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; JAMES D. PETERSON,
      NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN;
     NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN
    DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS; AND INDIRA TALWANI, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE
                       FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2014

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
    Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J.
    Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Leahy, Schumer, Durbin, Whitehouse,
    Franken, Coons, Blumenthal, Grassley, Sessions, Lee, and Flake.
        Chairman Leahy. It seems that somebody has an important
    phone call that they may want to--I do not want the hearing to
    interrupt their phone call, if they would like to step outside
    to take it. They may or may not be able to get back in. He said
    subtly.
        We have the two Senators from Wisconsin who are here, and I
    know we have the nominee from Wisconsin, James Peterson. If the
    Ranking Member has no objection, why don't we let Senator
    Johnson and Senator Baldwin go first, because I know you have
    other committees you are supposed to be at, so I appreciate
    your being here, Senator Johnson. Go ahead.

             PRESENTATION OF JAMES D. PETERSON, NOMINEE TO
             BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
     WISCONSIN, BY HON. RON JOHNSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
                              OF WISCONSIN

        Senator Johnson. Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley,
    Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to come
    before the Judiciary Committee to recommend Mr. James D.
    Peterson to be the United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Wisconsin.
        Before going further, I would like to thank my colleague
    Senator Baldwin and the individuals that served on our
    bipartisan commission for all their hard work and cooperation
    that resulted in the selection of this well-qualified jurist to
    serve the Nation and the people of Wisconsin's Western District
    well.
        As many of you know, the Western District is currently
    facing a judicial emergency. United States District Judge
    Barbara Crabb has continued to serve on the bench despite
    retiring 4 years ago, and I sincerely appreciate her dedication
    to the State of Wisconsin during this vacancy. I have full
    confidence that with Jim's expertise and experience he will now
    be able to fill that void.
        Jim has deep roots in Wisconsin, having earned a
    bachelor's, master's, and a Ph.D. from the University of
    Wisconsin-Madison before his first career as an associate
    professor of film studies at Notre Dame University. After a
    number of productive and successful years of academic life, his
    restlessness for intellectual challenge was piqued when his
    wife, Sue Collins, who is also here with Jim today, interested
    him in the law as she was teaching legal writing at Valparaiso
    University Law School. They both returned to the University of
    Wisconsin where they each obtained their law degrees.
        Mr. Peterson is currently the leader of the law firm
    Godfrey and Kahn's intellectual property litigation working
    group and has handled a wide variety of commercial and
    constitutional disputes. He has also served as the local
    counsel in nearly two dozen patent disputes in the Western
    District of Wisconsin. In addition, he has appeared before the
    Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
    and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears
    appeals of patent cases from district courts across the
    country. This experience is important in the Western District
    of Wisconsin which oversees many complex intellectual property
    cases. Since 2007, the Western District of Wisconsin was ranked
    among the 25 most popular courts for patent litigation, largely
    due to the court's speed, commonly referred to as ``the rocket
    docket.''
        Jim is also the author of numerous academic publications
    which proved helpful to everyone involved during his
    application process. Right after law school, he was firsthand
    the challenges and requirements associated with being a judge
    when he served as the law clerk to the Honorable David D.
    Deininger of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
        Jim has had a challenging and successful career as a legal
    practitioner. I have no doubt he will as a Federal district
    court judge excel in yet another career for which he is well
    suited. Jim has my full support, and I am happy to recommend
    him to the Senate for swift confirmation.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson. You
    and I have discussed the nominee before, and I appreciate your
    being here.
        Senator Baldwin, I am so happy to have you here also.
    Please go ahead.

             PRESENTATION OF JAMES D. PETERSON, NOMINEE TO
             BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
    WISCONSIN, BY HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
                              OF WISCONSIN

        Senator Baldwin. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
    Ranking Member Grassley. It gives me great pleasure to appear
    before you this morning to introduce attorney James Peterson,
    the President's nominee for the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Wisconsin.
        The filling of judicial vacancies has been a top priority
    for me since even before I was sworn in to the U.S. Senator a
    year ago. The people of Wisconsin deserve to have these
    vacancies filled with highly qualified public servants who will
    work hard for them in our judicial system. Jim Peterson will be
    such a jurist when he is confirmed by the Senate.
        I am proud to have worked together with Senator Johnson to
    find common ground on this important issue for Wisconsin, and
    together we have put in place a Federal judicial nominating
    commission and a process for moving judicial nominations
    forward. James Peterson was among those recommended by the
    nonpartisan commission that we established last April.
        In August, Senator Johnson and I submitted Jim's name to
    the White House as a candidate to fill the open U.S. Federal
    district judgeship for the Western District of Wisconsin. I
    applaud the President's nomination of James Peterson to serve.
    Mr. Peterson will make an outstanding Federal judge, and his
    nomination marks an important step forward in fulfilling a
    judgeship that has been vacant for nearly 6 years.
        Jim's experience and expertise make him an outstanding
    choice for this position, and I am proud to join Senator
    Johnson in endorsing his nomination, and I am proud to come
    before you today to introduce Jim Peterson.
        Jim is a member of the intellectual property and litigation
    practice groups in the Madison office of Godfrey and Kahn, and
    he is a leader of the firm's intellectual property litigation
    working group. For the last 14 years, his professional life has
    been substantially devoted to practice for the firm and its
    national clients in the United States District Court for the
    Western District of Wisconsin.
        In addition to his work in the Western District of
    Wisconsin, he has appeared before the Wisconsin Supreme Court,
    the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit, which hears appeals of patent cases
    from district courts across the country.
        Jim is the president of the Western District Bar
    Association. The mission of the association is to work with
    attorneys, the court, and the public to facilitate the just,
    speedy, respectful, and efficient resolution of all matters
    before the court--qualities that have been the hallmarks of the
    Western District of Wisconsin.
        As you heard, he earned his J.D. from the University of
    Wisconsin Law School in 1998, where he was an officer of the
    moot court and a member of the Wisconsin Law Review and the
    Order of the Coif. From 1998 to 1999, he served as a law clerk
    to my friend and former colleague, Honorable David Deininger,
    on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. He is a member of the
    adjunct faculty of the University of Wisconsin Law School,
    having taught copyright law and public speaking workshops for
    law students. And as you also heard, he received his Ph.D. in
    communications from the University of Wisconsin in 1986.
        Jim lives in my home town of Madison, Wisconsin, with his
    wife, Sue Collins, who is also an attorney. I am very pleased
    that she is here today, along with their two daughters, Lauren
    Collins Peterson and Anna Collins Peterson; Anna's fiance,
    Derek Behnke; and Jim's parents, James D. Peterson, Sr., and
    Patricia Peterson.
        Senator Johnson and I agree on James Peterson's nomination
    to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
    Wisconsin, and I hope that our joint support sends a strong
    message to this Committee and the entire Senate that he is the
    right choice for this judgeship.
        I urge the Committee and the full Senate to consider and
    confirm his nomination without undue delay.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you, Senator Baldwin, and I
    also appreciate the time you spent with me, as well as Senator
    Johnson, on this nominee, and thank you.
        Senator Warren, Senator Durbin has suggested you go first.
    You have Indira Talwani to be U.S. district judge. Please go
    ahead.

             PRESENTATION OF INDIRA TALWANI, NOMINEE TO BE
       DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, BY HON.
          ELIZABETH WARREN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
                             MASSACHUSETTS

        Senator Warren. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator
    Durbin, thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ranking Member
    Grassley, and Members of the Committee.
        Chairman Leahy. Also, I should mention to Senator Baldwin,
    you do not have to stay. I am not trying to get rid of you,
    but----
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Leahy. I know, like all of us, you have got about
    12 other things you are supposed to be at. I appreciate your
    support.
        Senator Warren. So thank you very much, thank you, Mr.
    Chairman. I am very pleased to be here this morning to
    introduce Indira Talwani. She has bee nominated to fill a
    judicial vacancy on the District Court for the District of
    Massachusetts.
        Ms. Talwani's nomination came to me after she was
    recommended for this position by the Advisory Committee on
    Massachusetts Judicial Nominations. The advisory committee is
    comprised of distinguished members of the Massachusetts legal
    community, including prominent academics and prominent
    litigators and is chaired by the former Massachusetts District
    Court Judge Nancy Gertner. The advisory committee's
    recommendation reflects the strength of Ms. Talwani's resume,
    the exceptionally warm reviews that she received from those who
    have worked with her, and the firm conviction of the
    Massachusetts legal community that she will make an excellent
    district court judge.
        Indira Talwani is the daughter of immigrants from India and
    Germany. She graduated with honors from Harvard University and
    was later named Order of the Coif at Boalt Hall School of Law
    at the University of California-Berkeley. She is here today
    with her husband, Tod; her daughter Natasha, and her son, Nico;
    and her brother, Rajeev. I know they are all immensely proud to
    be able to attend this hearing and provide their love and
    support on this extraordinary day, as their son, Shelton, who
    was unable to be here.
        Immediately after graduating, Ms. Talwani spent a year
    serving as a law clerk to Judge Stanley Weigel of the United
    States District Court for the Northern District of California,
    building practical experience that will serve her well as a
    district court judge. She subsequently worked for several years
    as an associate and later a partner at the firm of Altshuler,
    Berzon, Nussbaum and Rubin in San Francisco before moving in
    1999 to join Segal Roitman LLP in Boston, where she is
    currently a partner.
        Ms. Talwani has an impressive track record as a litigator,
    having represented clients in matters before the Massachusetts
    State trial courts and appeals courts, as well as the district
    court to which she has been nominated, the Federal courts of
    appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
        In addition to her broad credentials and wide litigation
    experience, Ms. Talwani has developed particular expertise in
    legal issues that relate to employment. She is the associate
    editor of a treatise on the Family and Medical Leave Act,
    compiled by the American Bar Association. Her work representing
    an investment advisor whistleblower who was allegedly
    retaliated against for reporting accounting irregularities to
    her supervisor earned her the distinction of being named one of
    Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly's top ten lawyers for 2010, and
    she is currently assisting in the argument of that case before
    the U.S. Supreme Court.
        Ms. Talwani is also committed to public service, providing
    pro bono representation to indigent clients. She has worked
    with the Greater Boston Legal Services to ensure that low-
    income clients have access to counsel.
        Ms. Talwani's nomination is strongly supported by the Asian
    American Lawyers Association of Massachusetts. Asian Americans
    are a fast-growing segment of our State's population, and that
    growth is reflected in our State bench, which currently has ten
    Asian American judges. Remarkably, if she is confirmed, Ms.
    Talwani will be the first individual of Asian descent to serve
    on the Federal bench in Massachusetts.
        Indira Talwani is a first-rate litigator with impressive
    credentials. Her unique professional and personal background
    will bring important perspective to the Federal bench in
    Massachusetts. I am proud to have recommended her to President
    Obama, and I look forward to her approval by this Committee and
    her swift confirmation by the full Senate. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you very much. I know that--I
    say this as President Pro Tem, which means, as the Senator from
    Massachusetts knows, I sometimes preside for about 1 minute at
    the opening of the session and then somebody else takes over.
    Senator Markey is currently presiding over the Senate so that I
    can be here, and I know he joins with you, too, in the support
    of this outstanding nominee. So thank you very, very much.
        Senator Warren. Yes, he does, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
        Senator Durbin, you have also an extraordinary nominee for
    the Southern District of Illinois. Let me yield to you.

     PRESENTATION OF NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT
                   JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
    ILLINOIS, BY HON. DICK DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
                                ILLINOIS

        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to
    introduce Nancy Rosenstengel to the Committee. She has been
    nominated to serve as district court judge in the Southern
    District of Illinois to fill the judgeship in East St. Louis
    left vacant by the retirement of Judge Patrick Murphy in
    December.
        Ms. Rosenstengel knows the St. Louis courthouse very well,
    currently serves as clerk of the court for the Southern
    District, a position she has held since 2009. She is the chief
    administrative officer for the court responsible for the day-
    to-day management functions of the court, and she has received
    widespread praise for her handling of this responsibility.
        Previously she served for 11 years as judicial law clerk to
    Judge Murphy, the judge she is nominated to replace. As Judge
    Murphy's career law clerk, she assisted him in hundreds of
    civil and criminal proceedings during all stages of litigation.
    It is hard to imagine a better training for judgeship.
        Ms. Rosenstengel also worked for 5 years in private
    practice at the law firm Sandberg, Phoenix and von Gontard in
    St. Louis, where she handled a broad range of litigation
    matters.
        Born in Alton, Illinois, currently lives in Belleville,
    Illinois, received her B.A. cum laude from the University of
    Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, her J.D. cum laude from Southern
    Illinois University School of Law, Ms. Rosenstengel's
    nomination is historic. No woman--no woman--has ever served as
    an Article III Federal judge in the Southern District of
    Illinois. Upon confirmation, Nancy Rosenstengel will be the
    first, and I am sure she will do an outstanding job.
        I want to thank my colleague Senator Mark Kirk for his
    support of this nomination as well. In Illinois, we have a
    bipartisan process for recommending judicial candidates to the
    White House, and we have had a pretty good record of bringing
    forward some outstanding nominees for very timely confirmation,
    and I hope this will be no exception. I am sure it will not be.
        Ms. Rosenstengel was recommended to me by a bipartisan
    screening committee which we established, and they were proud
    to recommend her name to me, and I was proud to recommend her
    with Senator Kirk to the President. I look forward to working
    with my colleagues to see that she moves through the
    confirmation process swiftly. I know she will have a chance to
    introduce her family with more specificity, but I want to thank
    her husband, Jon, and her three children, Katie, Anna, and
    Jack, for joining us. They are all welcome here today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you, and I appreciate what you and
    Senator Kirk have done, and I think, Senator Grassley, you have
    a statement from Senator Kirk.
        Senator Grassley. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This will
    be in support of the same nominee as Senator Durbin, so we will
    put that in the record.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you. And I appreciate the strong
    support of both Senator Durbin and Senator Kirk on this.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY,
                A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

        Chairman Leahy. Now we mentioned the three judicial
    nominees. We are going to have five nominees before us. Let me
    speak about a couple of them.
        Debo Patrick Adegbile--even though he works for me, I
    always have trouble with that, and I apologize--is nominated to
    be the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the
    Department of Justice. He currently serves as Senior Counsel on
    the Judiciary Committee, where he has done exceptional work and
    has provided me with prudent counsel on many, many issues.
        Like other Members of the Committee who have had staff
    members nominated to positions in the administration or to the
    judiciary, the nominations come with mixed emotions. As I am
    sure Senators Hatch, Cornyn, Lee, and Schumer can attest, it is
    no surprise when members of our staffs on either side of the
    aisle are tapped by the administration for positions.
        Anyone who knows this nominee appreciates that he is an
    excellent choice to lead the Civil Rights Division at the
    Department of Justice. He brings a wealth of experience. I
    remember when he testified before the Committee as an expert on
    voting rights in 2006. He has earned a reputation for his calm
    demeanor and for working to build consensus. He is a careful
    lawyer and a good listener. And these skills have made him one
    of the country's most prominent appellate advocates. Former
    Solicitor General Paul Clement under President George W. Bush
    said the following about Debo: ``I have litigated both with and
    against Debo and have heard him argue in the Supreme Court. I
    have always found him to be a formidable advocate of the
    highest intellect, skills, and integrity.''
        Like Justice Thurgood Marshall, he served as Acting
    President and Director Counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and
    Educational Fund and also as Associate Director Counsel and
    Director of Litigation. He argued two significant cases on
    voting rights during that time before the U.S. Supreme Court.
    He also litigated in private practice at the well-known, highly
    respected law firm of Paul, Weiss for 7 years.
        Let me just tell you a little bit about him. He was born in
    the Bronx to an Irish mother--thus the middle name, I expect--
    and a father from Nigeria. He grew up in poverty and
    experienced periods of homelessness. But through hard work and
    grit, he graduated from Connecticut College and then earned his
    law degree from the New York University School of Law. And I
    might say this to his two lovely daughters I had a chance to
    meet earlier. They may not appreciate it yet, but they will as
    they get older. But his journey from the Bronx to this
    nomination is a remarkable example of the American dream, one
    of the best. I know he has been shaped by these experiences.
        Today the Committee also welcomes John Carlin, who has been
    nominated to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the
    National Security Division at the Department of Justice, an
    increasingly significant position. And, of course, we have
    heard Senators refer to the three U.S. district judges.
        I am going to yield to the Ranking Member for an opening
    statement, and then we will call the nominees up. And I know
    Senator Schumer at that point is going to introduce John
    Carlin.
        Senator Grassley.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY,
                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

        Senator Grassley. First, I, like my colleagues,
    congratulate the nominees and the families that are proud of
    their nomination who happen to be here with them today and
    probably a lot of people that are proud of their nomination who
    cannot be here today as well. We are considering three district
    court nominees and two important Department of Justice
    positions, one of these to the Civil Rights Division. That
    Division has had its share of controversy lately. I have
    reminded my colleagues of the predecessor's involvement of this
    office orchestrating the quid pro quo between the Department of
    Justice and the city of St. Paul where the Department of
    Justice went to great lengths to get a case withdrawn from the
    Supreme Court so that the legal theory known as ``disparate
    impact'' would evade a Supreme Court decision. And, of course,
    there have been very disturbing allegations of politicizing the
    hiring process at the Civil Rights Division. In fact, March
    last year, the Inspector General report criticized the Civil
    Rights Division for using hiring practices, noting that the
    primary criterion used by the hiring committee resulted in a
    pool of candidates that was ``overwhelmingly Democratic/liberal
    in affiliation'' from the IG report. So I have some concerns
    with the way that the Civil Rights Division has been run.
        Now, that has nothing to do with the nominee, but we do
    have some concern about the nominee's legal experience, and we
    have this letter from the Fraternal Order of Police, an
    organization that is very well respected by both sides of the
    aisle, submitting a letter strongly opposing the nominee for
    the Civil Rights Division. The Fraternal Order of Police
    represents 330,000 men and women who are on the front lines of
    law enforcement, putting their lives on the lines to protect us
    every day. So when they write to inform us of their ``extreme
    disappointment, displeasure, and vehement opposition'' to the
    nominee for the Civil Rights Division, I think that we should
    give their concerns thoughtful consideration, and I am sure
    that the nominee will be willing to address some of those
    concerns and give his point of view on them.
        I look forward then to hearing from the nominee on these
    and other issues, and I would ask consent that that letter be
    placed in the record.
        Chairman Leahy. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The letter appears as a submission for the record.]
        Senator Grassley. And then the rest of my statement is in
    regard to the work of the Committee. My colleagues have heard
    that, so I will summarize that by simply saying that over the
    course of the last 5 years we have been able to approve 217 of
    the President's lower court judges and at this point
    disapproved on the floor of only two, a 99-percent record.
        The rest of my statement is in the record with more detail
    on that point.
        [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Grassley appears
    as a submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. And we will look forward to approving on
    the floor the whole bunch of them that are still sitting there.
        Senator Grassley. Yes, and you will have to work that out
    with Reid and McConnell. That is a fact.
        Chairman Leahy. I am going to--my religion believes in
    miracles, but only to an extent. But, anyway, why don't I call
    Mr. Carlin, Mr. Adegbile, Mr. Peterson, Ms. Rosenstengel, and
    Ms. Talwani up here.
        What I am going to do, before I yield to Senator Schumer,
    if I just might ask all the nominees--I should have done this
    before you sat down. Please stand and raise your right hand. Do
    you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give in this
    matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
    truth, so help you God?
        Mr. Carlin. I do.
        Mr. Adegbile. I do.
        Mr. Peterson. I do.
        Ms. Rosenstengel. I do.
        Ms. Talwani. I do.
        Chairman Leahy. Let the record note that they all agreed to
    that.
        Senator Schumer, you wished to introduce Mr. Carlin.

             PRESENTATION OF JOHN P. CARLIN, NOMINEE TO BE
    ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND DEBO P. ADEGBILE, NOMINEE TO BE
                     ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY
     HON. CHUCK SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you,
    Senator Grassley, and other Members of the Committee. You know,
    it is not uncommon for me to go from Committee to Committee in
    the Senate introducing talented and public service-oriented New
    Yorkers to my colleagues. As I am sure some of my colleagues
    know, four of the five boroughs are represented--of New York
    City, of course, are represented on----
        Chairman Leahy. We do not have many boroughs in Vermont.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Schumer. Are represented on the Supreme Court:
    Justice Ginsburg from my home borough of Brooklyn; she went to
    P.S. 238 where my wife went; Justice Scalia from Queens;
    Justice Sotomayor from the Bronx; and Justice Kagan from
    Manhattan. So it is not surprising today that we have two New
    Yorkers poised to take important leadership positions at the
    Department of Justice.
        I first want to introduce John Carlin. Mr. Carlin is a
    native of New York and nominated to be the Assistant Attorney
    General for the National Security Division of DOJ. Mr. Carlin
    graduated high school from Dalton in Manhattan, where I am
    going this Friday to watch my niece in the eighth grade--she is
    on the varsity basketball team, I have been told only the
    second time that has been done. Who knows? The Dalton Tigers--
    and earned his undergraduate degree from Williams College, his
    law degree from Harvard Law School, and he was articles editor
    of the Harvard Journal on Legislation.
        After graduating from law school, Mr. Carlin dedicated his
    entire career to the Department of Justice. He has served as
    trial attorney for the Tax Division, an Assistant U.S. Attorney
    for the District of Columbia, a senior adviser and chief of
    staff to Robert Mueller, then Director of the FBI, and as the
    Acting head of the National Security Division.
        In the course of his career, he has prosecuted everything
    from homicides to public corruption cases, and he has developed
    a special expertise in something we dearly need, and that is in
    cyber crime. It is probably the next redoubt for organized
    criminals--the cyber world is the next redoubt for organized
    criminals and terrorists. Mr. Carlin is recipient of the DOJ
    Award for Special Achievement and has also been awarded the
    prestigious Samuel J. Heyman fellowship for Federal Government
    service, so over the course of 14 years in his legal career,
    Carlin has quietly and capably served at the nexus of law
    enforcement and intelligence.
        I have more to say about Mr. Carlin, but I will conclude by
    saying the most important thing. His wife, Sarah, and his cute
    little daughter who I saw, Sylvie, is here; and his parents,
    Patricia and Roy, who I hope, Mr. Carlin, are still residents
    of New York. Good, good.
        I would like to say a word, with the Chairman's indulgence,
    on another New Yorker who he had the honor to introduce because
    he served well on this Committee and we recognize Debo Adegbile
    for the great work he did there. I just want to add my thoughts
    to what Senator Leahy said.
        The Civil Rights Division is the crowning jewel of civil
    rights enforcement in this country. Under the capable
    leadership of now Secretary Tom Perez, it recovered from some
    of the dark days during the previous administration, and I know
    that Mr. Adegbile has committed his entire career not just to
    politics but to the enforcement of the very laws that his
    Division protects as its core function, and his primary goal as
    a lawyer has been to interpret and apply our country's long-
    held anti-discrimination principles. He did a great job under
    your leadership, Mr. Chairman. I am confident he will do a
    great job in the Civil Rights Division. And he came up the hard
    way. He even spent time in one of New York's most notorious
    residences for the underprivileged, the infamous Martinique
    Hotel. And he has come all the way from there to here, which is
    a testament to his hard work and a beacon for the precepts of
    equal opportunity that he will now enforce.
        So I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
        I will put in the record from Senator Gillibrand the
    introductions for Mr. Carlin and Mr. Adegbile, and those will
    be placed in the record.
        [The information referred to appears as a submission for
    the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Let me start first with each one of you,
    and I will call on you if you have any comments, Mr. Carlin,
    but I would also like you to introduce--I know that Senator
    Schumer has, but introduce again whatever family members or
    anybody else here. It will someday be in the Carlin archives,
    and you will want to be able to refer to it.

     STATEMENT OF JOHN P. CARLIN, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
                  GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

        Mr. Carlin. Well, thank you, Chairman Leahy and Ranking
    Member Grassley and distinguished Members of this Committee. It
    is an honor to appear before you today, and I thank you for
    considering my nomination. And thank you, Senator Schumer, for
    your very kind introduction. Go, Tigers.
        I would also like to thank the President for his confidence
    in nominating me and the Attorney General for his support.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce the members of
    my family who are here today and thank them for their love and
    support over the years: my wife, Sarah, and our daughter,
    Sylvie; my parents, Roy and Patricia, who traveled here from
    New York City yesterday in the 8 degree weather; my sister,
    Jennifer, and my brother-in-law, Don; and my nephew, Daniel,
    and niece, Katie, who came in from northern New Jersey.
        I also want to thank my wife for her countless sacrifices
    to allow me to pursue a career in public service, and thank my
    parents who have taught my sister and me the important lesson,
    both by example and by word, of dedication, discipline, and
    always trying to do what is right.
        With the support of all of my family and their
    selflessness, I have been able to choose the path that has led
    me here today.
        And I would like to thank the people from the National
    Security Division and the friends who have come here today to
    show their support.
        It has really been a privilege to spend my entire legal
    career with the Department of Justice and to witness a time of
    enormous transformation after the terrible events of September
    11th. As with so many Americans, I and my family recall vividly
    the events of that day, the horror of senseless murder and the
    dark cloud of ashes that hung over New York City for all too
    long. My brother-in-law was across the street, working at the
    time, from the Twin Towers, and my father was in the subway
    underneath. And I remember as our family called each other to
    determine that each one of us was safe. We were lucky.
        Our mission at the National Security Division is clear:
    Prevent future terrorist attacks while preserving our civil
    liberties. It is a special honor and privilege to be considered
    for a position charged with leading the Division that this
    body, Congress, created to unite all the Department of
    Justice's national security elements, to bring to bear all
    tools in the fight against terrorism and other threats against
    national security.
        Serving as the Acting Assistant Attorney General for
    National Security for approximately the last 10 months, I have
    been both humbled and driven by the responsibilities and
    mission that you have entrusted to the position. This mission
    builds upon the lessons we have learned through our evolving
    approach to national security over the past years, and my
    experience has taught me about the transformative power of
    lawyers in a government based on the rule of law and the sense
    of duty and mission that comes with it.
        For more than a decade, I have learned from and worked
    alongside some legendary public servants as the United States
    undertook fundamental changes in our approach to combating the
    threat of terrorism and other emerging national security
    challenges and, in particular, working with FBI Director Bob
    Mueller as his counsel and later as his chief of staff to help
    the Bureau evolve from a law enforcement agency into a threat-
    based, intelligence-driven national security organization.
        Here at the National Security Division, we must apply and
    are applying those lessons both to meet the growing national
    security cyber threat and to continue to evolve to meet other
    national security threats. And if I am fortunate enough to be
    confirmed, I look forward to continuing this important
    evolution.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
    today and for your consideration, and I look forward to
    answering your questions.
        [The biographical information of Mr. Carlin appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Adegbile, would you please--I have already met your
    family, but there are other members of your family, too. Would
    you introduce everybody here from your family? And then I will
    yield to you for any statement you may wish to make. Press the
    button.
        Mr. Adegbile. Excuse me.
        Chairman Leahy. There you go.

    STATEMENT OF DEBO P. ADEGBILE, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
                  GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

        Mr. Adegbile. Thank you, Senator. I am joined today by my
    wife, Susan Haskell, whose love, kindness, and strength
    sustains me and helps make me a better person. We are joined
    also by our two lovely daughters, Sela and Devan. Sela and
    Devan are the joy of our lives, and Susan and I could not be
    more proud of them.
        We are also joined by my mother-in-law, Carol Haskell, a
    person of tremendous grace and love for her family.
        Chairman Leahy. And I would note for the record that your
    wife is a graduate of the University of Vermont. I just thought
    I would throw that out.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Schumer. Where was she raised?
        Chairman Leahy. Never mind.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Adegbile. Connecticut, for the record.
        Chairman Leahy. Senator Blumenthal sat up on that one.
        Senator Blumenthal. I will await my turn, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Adegbile. In addition, Senator, there are many friends
    here spanning from my years in grade school through law school.
    I am joined by former and present colleagues, and I thank them
    all for their attendance, whether or not that attendance was
    compelled.
        Thank you, Chairman----
        Chairman Leahy. We will submit all their names for the
    record later on.
        Mr. Adegbile. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, for your
    leadership of this Committee. Thank you, Ranking Member
    Grassley, for your long service to this Nation. And thank you
    to all the Members of the Committee.
        I also would like to thank President Obama for the
    nomination and the President and Attorney General Holder for
    the opportunity, if confirmed, to serve our Nation as Assistant
    Attorney General.
        I have a deep appreciation for the opportunities America
    provides. I know, too, that the road to opportunity can be long
    and difficult. I have faced the challenges and learned from
    them. I have learned that that which binds is stronger than
    that which threatens to divide us.
        I have benefited from the transformative power of
    educational opportunity. I know firsthand that in our country,
    with the benefit of education, steadfastness, and a bit of good
    luck, the circumstances of one's birth need not limit one's
    aspirations or achievements.
        I have an unshakable belief in the value that we assign to
    civil rights. At the very outset, our Constitution sets as its
    goal as building a ``more perfect union,'' words that are both
    inspirational and aspirational.
        The Civil Rights Division, through the laws it enforces,
    protects all of us. The commitment and expertise of the public
    servants in the Division have dramatically and demonstrably
    improved our country. We are a stronger Nation today for these
    efforts. And yet our past successes should not limit our future
    achievements. We can do more to protect civil rights, we must
    do more to protect civil rights, and the Division stands ready
    to protect the civil rights of all Americans.
        I have seen the impact that enforcing civil rights can have
    on real people's lives. Improved employment options, greater
    access to educational opportunity, removal of unnecessary
    barriers for people with disabilities, and ensuring fuller
    access to the political process, among other efforts, make
    lives more fulfilling.
        If confirmed, I will commit to lead the Division with
    fidelity to its mission and with the sensitivity, fairness, and
    integrity that civil rights work, effective civil rights work,
    requires.
        It is my great privilege to appear before you this morning,
    and I look forward to your questions.
        [The biographical information of Mr. Adegbile appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you very much.
        Mr. Peterson, please go ahead, and if you have family you
    would like to introduce, please feel free to.

     STATEMENT OF JAMES D. PETERSON, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE
                 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

        Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member
    Grassley and all the Members of the Committee, for considering
    my nomination. I want to thank the President for nominating me,
    and I want to particularly thank Senators Baldwin and Johnson
    for their kind remarks and especially for their work with the
    nominating commission to fill not only this vacancy but some
    others in Wisconsin and the Seventh Circuit.
        I would like to introduce some members of my family. With
    me today is my closest adviser and outstanding attorney, my
    wife of 32 years, Susan Collins. I am also pleased that our
    daughters could be here. Our daughter Lauren traveled from the
    borough of Manhattan to be here today, Lauren Peterson. Our
    younger daughter, Anna Peterson, came with us from Madison, and
    with her also is the newest member of our family, her fiance,
    Derek Behnke.
        I also want to acknowledge my sister, Lisa, and my brother,
    Wes, who cannot be here with us today, but I am sure they will
    watch the webcast.
        The last important guests that I would like to introduce
    are my Mom and Dad, James D. Peterson, Sr., and Patricia
    Peterson. I know they are proud of me, but I wanted to take
    this opportunity to tell you how proud I am of them. They
    worked very hard to make sure that my brother and sister and I
    had the benefit of an education from the University of
    Wisconsin. They did not have the benefit of that education, but
    they were smart, they worked hard, and they both went on to
    outstanding professional careers, and they were able to retire
    early and are now enjoying a long and well-deserved retirement
    in the great State of North Carolina. I want to let you know
    that they have truly lived the American dream, and they have
    been an inspiration to me my entire life. Thank you, Mom and
    Dad.
        And with that, Senators, I welcome your questions.
        [The biographical information of Mr. Peterson appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
        And, Ms. Rosenstengel.

      STATEMENT OF NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT
              JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

        Ms. Rosenstengel. Good morning. I would like to thank
    Senator Durbin for the introduction and Senator Kirk for his
    role in this process.
        I thank President Obama for the nomination and Chairman
    Leahy, Senator Grassley, and the entire Committee for giving me
    the opportunity to appear here today and for considering my
    nomination.
        With me today is my husband, Jon Rosenstengel. We have been
    married for 17 years, and he has always been very supportive of
    my career, and for that I am very grateful. Together we are
    raising three beautiful children while balancing our legal
    careers, which is some days an easier task than others.
        I am blessed to have my children with me here today. My
    daughter Kate is 15 and a sophomore at Mascoutah High School in
    Mascoutah, Illinois. We strategically placed her between the
    other two to referee if necessary. My daughter Anna will turn
    14 tomorrow, and I am excited that she will always remember
    celebrating her 14th birthday in our Nation's capital. And last
    but not least, my son, Jack, is 11 and he is in fifth grade at
    Mascoutah Elementary School.
        Also, I would like to acknowledge those who could not be
    with me here today but I am sure are watching on the webcast:
    my mother, Joyce Neimayer, in Glen Carbon, Illinois; my mother-
    in-law, Janet Rosenstengel, in Belleville, Illinois; my
    brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, Jeff and Lee Bonnefield,
    Jeremy and Cian Rosenstengel, and our nieces and nephews, Jim,
    Jerry, Julie, and Rachel; my aunt and uncle, Lolly and Ron
    Davies, who are watching from Casa Grande, Arizona; and Jon's
    cousins, who I grew up with, who are all lawyers, watching in
    Dallas, Denver, and Chicago; as well as Jon's aunt and uncle,
    Jerry and Kathy Bonnefield; and many other friends of ours in
    southern Illinois who I will not begin to try to mention; and
    likely the entire court family in the Southern District.
        I thank you again for the opportunity to appear here today,
    and I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The biographical information of Ms. Rosenstengel appears
    as a submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you very much.
        And, Ms. Talwani, please, if you have family members you
    wish to introduce here?

               STATEMENT OF INDIRA TALWANI, NOMINEE TO BE
            DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

        Ms. Talwani. Yes, thank you, Chairman Leahy, thank you,
    Ranking Member Grassley, and to this Committee for holding this
    hearing on such an early date in January. Senator Warren, I
    appreciate the very, very kind introduction and the
    recommendation, and to President Obama for this incredible
    honor.
        I have with me a number of my family members: first and
    foremost, my husband, Tod Cochran. We have been married for
    almost 27 years. He is the love of my life. Our three children,
    two of whom are here: Natasha, Shelton, and Nico. Natasha is a
    master's student at Clark University, and she is student
    teaching right now--not this moment. She is sitting here behind
    me, but she is a student teacher at University Park Campus
    School, and her tenth grade high school class is watching
    today's hearing. My son Shelton is a biochemistry major at
    Amherst College and was unable to come, but is watching. And
    Nico, our 10-year-old, is sitting behind me.
        My brother, Rajeev, traveled here from Los Angeles, and I
    really appreciate that, on incredibly short notice. My other
    brother, Sunjay, in Helena, Montana, was not able to come but
    is watching.
        My uncle and aunt, Pradeep and Anita Talwani, from South
    Carolina, traveled up; my cousin, Rohit Talwani, from Maryland;
    and my niece, Bonnie Doyle, and I should mention was a clerk on
    the Vermont Supreme Court, so we are making our Vermont
    connections, but traveled down here----
        Chairman Leahy. It does not hurt.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Talwani. She traveled down here from New York.
        My biggest thanks and appreciation go to my parents. My
    father and mother taught me so much about hard work, integrity,
    the value of family. They celebrated their----
        Chairman Leahy. Take your time.
        Ms. Talwani. They celebrated their 55th anniversary last
    year before my mother passed away. And my father is the one
    person who is upset at this early hearing because he is
    attending the Indian Geophysical Union meeting in Hyderabad,
    India, as we speak, and was unable to make it here on this
    notice. But there, too, I believe the American delegation is
    watching us from Hyderabad.
        Others who could not come I owe appreciation to: my
    parents-in-law, sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law, nephews,
    nieces, cousins around the country; and my friends and law
    partners and colleagues from Massachusetts for these past 15
    years, and California, the 10 years of practice before I
    returned to Massachusetts.
        Thank you very much for this opportunity.
        [The biographical information of Ms. Talwani appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. I am glad we are webcasting so your husband
    can see it--I mean, your father can see it, and I also have to
    think how proud your mother would be, too.
        Let me begin the questions with Mr. Adegbile. You have had
    this distinguished career at a top law firm, also at the NAACP
    Legal Defense and Educational Fund. We have heard one--a noted
    Republican Solicitor General who has praised you. You have
    testified before this Committee. You have worked for this
    Committee on these issues. How do your personal and
    professional experiences prepare you to lead the Civil Rights
    Division at the Department of Justice?
        Mr. Adegbile. Thank you, Senator. I think about the extent
    to which America has provided me with great opportunities, the
    extent to which people who have come before me removed barriers
    so that I could thrive and work hard and, given the chance,
    serve other people. My experiences have called me toward
    service in different contexts, and the thing that I think is so
    wonderful about the work of the Civil Rights Division is that
    in many ways it is about opportunity and fair play.
        I would commit myself, if confirmed, to advancing those
    causes through the laws that the Civil Rights Division advances
    every single day.
        Chairman Leahy. You know, Senator Grassley has referenced a
    letter, which is part of the record now, and one I have
    received, too. I worked a great deal with law enforcement over
    the years, having served 8 years in law enforcement myself. And
    they raise the question of the 1981 murder of a Philadelphia
    police officer. I think we all agree that this was a horrific
    crime, and the slaying of Officer Daniel Faulkner caused
    immeasurable loss for Officer Faulkner's family and his fellow
    officers. Whenever a law enforcement officer is killed, it
    affects all of us who depend upon the police for protection and
    leadership in our communities. I find it particularly poignant,
    having spent 8 years working with police officers.
        So I would like you to explain the role that LDF played in
    the case, and just for background, in 1982 Mumia Abu Jamal was
    convicted by a jury of murdering Officer Daniel Faulkner, and
    he was sentenced to death. In 2001, a Federal judge in
    Philadelphia overturned the death sentence--not the conviction
    but the death sentence--because the original trial court gave
    jury instructions on the requirements to issue a death sentence
    that violated what the Supreme Court had laid down in their
    precedents. And I understand that between 2008 and 2011, your
    name appeared on three appellate briefs that LDF filed in
    appeals in this case.
        So can you clarify, one, whether the appellate briefs filed
    by LDF and signed by you in this case disparaged the fallen
    officer or argued any of the facts surrounding the murder?
        Mr. Adegbile. Absolutely. Those briefs, Senator, made no
    negative comment about the tragic loss of Officer Faulkner. It
    is a tremendous loss to lose a civil servant, a public law
    enforcement officer serving the people. And I would never
    personally or professionally say anything negative about that
    horrific loss. My sympathy goes to his family, to the community
    in Philadelphia, and it would be completely contrary to my
    person to make any negative comment about that particular
    situation.
        Our work when I was a lawyer--and this is when I was at
    LDF--the work involved a legal issue relating to jury issues.
    It was about the legal process, and it was years after the
    conviction had been entered by the lower court. It was on an
    issue of whether or not the jury had properly been instructed,
    and ultimately several Federal courts found that the jury had
    not been properly instructed, and there was, in fact, a
    constitutional violation. It was on that basis that the death
    sentence was thrown out and Mr. Abu Jamal was resentenced to
    life without parole.
        But it is important, I think, to understand that in no way
    does that legal representation, zealously as an advocate, cast
    any aspersion or look past the grievous loss of Sergeant
    Faulkner.
        Chairman Leahy. Okay. You know, like many others on this
    panel, as a lawyer, I have defended cases and then subsequently
    as a prosecutor prosecuted cases. I think we all agree that in
    any issue you should have advocates on both sides. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Adegbile. Absolutely. That is what our system calls
    for.
        Chairman Leahy. And when you argued this case before the
    Supreme Court, you had advocates on the other side arguing the
    other way. Is that not correct?
        Mr. Adegbile. That is correct. And in briefs. I did not
    actually argue the case.
        Chairman Leahy. I mean in the briefs.
        Mr. Adegbile. That is correct.
        Chairman Leahy. But you had others on the other side. Thank
    you. So how do you respond to those who criticize your
    involvement in this case?
        Mr. Adegbile. Senator, what I understand about these types
    of cases, death penalty cases, is that they are the most
    harrowing cases. In every circumstance somebody has been
    killed, and that sends ripples through families, through
    communities, and through societies. So these are the hardest
    cases.
        But our commitment in the Constitution is to follow our
    procedural rules even in those hardest cases, perhaps
    especially in those hardest cases, so that all of our rights
    can be vindicated. But I completely understand how difficult
    these cases are, and I have experienced that difficulty as a
    lawyer, and I take nothing away from the people who come to
    these cases and wonder how can somebody stand in the shoes and
    represent somebody. But that is what we commit ourselves to
    under our Constitution.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you. I have exceeded my time, and I
    will yield to Senator Grassley, and Senator Coons has offered
    to take over the Chair for me as I have to go to another
    hearing. But thank you very much, and I can assure you that I
    support your nomination. I support the nomination of all five
    of the nominees who are here before us. I think the country is
    fortunate to have people of the quality of the men and women
    before us ready to serve.
        Senator Grassley. I am going to start with Mr. Carlin and
    refer to the President's Review Group of Intelligence and
    Communication Technology and the report that was recently
    issued. Many of the group's recommendations would affect the
    way in which national security investigations are conducted.
    One example, the review group's recommendations would require a
    judge to approve all national security letters before they are
    sent. This would obviously be a dramatic change.
        Number one question: What would the operational effect of
    this recommendation be on national security investigations?
        Mr. Carlin. Thank you, Ranking Member, for your question.
    The President's review group has submitted a series of
    recommendations. I know the administration is considering and
    the President is considering those recommendations and also
    hearing from a variety of others, including meeting with
    Members of the Senate and hearing from the intelligence
    community heads and hearing from other groups, such as the
    Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Oversight Board, as we try to
    wrestle with, in a time of changing technology, how do we
    ensure that we accomplish our core mission of keeping the
    American people safe while at the same time preserving our
    treasured values of civil rights and civil liberties. They made
    a whole slew of recommendations. There are a lot of different
    thoughts in one way or the other.
        Senator Grassley. Well, maybe you are telling me you do not
    know the effect that the recommendations have on the operation
    of our national security investigations. Is that what you are
    saying, you do not know what the impact of those
    recommendations would be?
        Mr. Carlin. I think they are still studying and coming to a
    conclusion as an administration. When I worked at----
        Senator Grassley. Well, you are saying they are coming to a
    conclusion about what the administration might recommend. My
    question is, in regard to the group's recommendations, if those
    were carried out, what would be that impact on the national
    security investigations?
        Mr. Carlin. Yes, sir. So I think they are still working out
    all of the ramifications, but I will say this in terms of the
    recommendation that you raise regarding national security
    letters, which is that during my time at the FBI and in my
    experience at the National Security Division, the type of
    information that you can obtain from those letters is often a
    critical building block in order to then obtain additional
    evidence to use more intrusive methods that have a higher
    standard, such as a probable cause standard. And so whatever
    changes we do make or contemplate, we should think carefully
    and make sure that we preserve the nimbleness and agility that
    we need to respond quickly to fast-moving national security
    threats while at the same time trying to preserve civil
    liberties.
        Senator Grassley. I think you can give a more definite
    response here, and I appreciate the last three or four
    sentences you gave. That is very important information.
        Was the National Security Division given an opportunity to
    respond to this recommendation before the review group issued
    its report? And did you or anyone from the National Security
    Division ever meet with the review group? And if you did, how
    many times and for how long?
        Mr. Carlin. I would say--thank you for that question
    because I think it is important before adopting recommendations
    to ensure that there is a thorough process and we hear from all
    elements from the intelligence community and law enforcement
    and national security community as well as others. The----
        Senator Grassley. Hence my question. Did they seek your
    advice before they issued a report?
        Mr. Carlin. I personally did not meet with the review
    group. There were individuals from the National Security
    Division who met with the group. I do not have the exact time
    for you here, sir, in terms of how long they spent with the
    group. I do not recall a discussion with them about the
    particular issue that you raised, the national security letter
    issue.
        Senator Grassley. Okay. I am glad that--for you, Mr.
    Adegbile, I am glad that Senator Leahy asked the question he
    did; I was going to ask. In regard to lawsuits that are pending
    from your Division, which you are not head of yet, but in
    regard to voter ID, if confirmed, do you plan to allow States
    to require voters to identify themselves to prevent the fraud
    that we have seen?
        Mr. Adegbile. Thank you for your question, Ranking Member
    Grassley. My understanding of the role of the Assistant
    Attorney General for Civil Rights is that the Assistant
    Attorney General works to evaluate laws where there are claims
    of civil rights violations. And so it is not, as I understand
    it, the role of the Assistant Attorney General to determine in
    the first instance how States run their voting systems. It is
    only in the context of a particular law that is passed that
    then occasionally becomes subject to review either because of
    the way in which it was passed or because of its impact.
        Senator Grassley. Thank you.
        Senator Coons [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator
    Grassley.
        Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. I believe others were here first, but I
    am happy to proceed if--are we going by seniority? If so, I
    will proceed. My questions are for Mr. Carlin. But before I ask
    my question of Mr. Carlin, Ms. Talwani, what time do you think
    it is in Hyderabad right now?
        Ms. Talwani. It is about 9\1/2\ hours, 10\1/2\ hours----
        Senator Whitehouse. In the evening, so not too bad. It is
    afternoon. They are not up at 2 in the morning. Well, our best
    wishes to the Hyderabad watchers.
        Mr. Carlin, we have talked about cyber, and I would like to
    kind of reprise a little bit of that conversation. My first
    concern is that we have had a number of members of the Obama
    administration say that the attacks through our cyber system on
    private corporations for the purpose of stealing their
    intellectual property to distribute to competitor corporations
    in the home country of the attacker is a very, very significant
    drain on our economy and, indeed, it has been described as the
    ``biggest illicit transfer of wealth in the history of
    mankind.''
        Given the scope of that ongoing criminal activity, I am
    concerned that the Department of Justice has not yet brought a
    single case arising out of a pure cyber intrusion against an
    American company for the purpose of stealing the American
    company's intellectual property. And there are clearly
    diplomatic concerns involved in taking such an action. There
    are clearly intelligence concerns that need to be addressed in
    terms of how the case is brought forward to protect sources and
    methods that may have supported the development of the case,
    and I get that. But I would like to hear your assurance that
    you will be more energetic about pursuing that kind of a case
    and working through the difficulties rather than allowing the
    Department to be defeated by those difficulties.
        Mr. Carlin. Thank you, Senator, for your question and for
    your leadership on issues having to do with the national
    security cyber threat. You have my absolute assurance and
    pledge that I will do all I can, if confirmed for this
    position, to ensure that we do confront that threat by using
    all tools in the toolbox, and that includes bringing, when we
    can, Article III criminal prosecutions. And since my time at
    the Division and building on my time as a prosecutor
    prosecuting cyber cases and my time at the Bureau working with
    Director Mueller to transform the Bureau to confront that
    threat, and subsequently at my time at the Division, my top
    priority for the Division as Acting Assistant Attorney General
    has been to transform the Division and to evolve the Division
    so we can meet the national security cyber threat by having
    dedicated national security cyber prosecutors working day in
    and day out to make sure that we can hold nation states or
    others accountable when they are stealing secrets from our
    corporations.
        Senator Whitehouse. Good. Well, I appreciate that, and it
    is just one Senator's point of view, but I would rather have
    the State Department have to have the problem of cleaning up a
    little bit than to have the Department of Justice have the
    problem of doing nothing about this massive hemorrhage of
    American value and this massive criminal attack sponsored by a
    foreign nation. So thank you for that.
        My second question is that I do not yet believe that our
    institutional structure for addressing this massive new threat
    is fully mature. I have been tracking this for months now, and
    there are constantly new initiatives and new programs that are
    emerging, and I understand that it is a continuing work in
    progress, and I want to make sure that part of your work is to
    try to look ahead, not just to the concerns of the moment but
    to what the cyber threat is going to look like in the years
    ahead and what sort of a structure in law enforcement is the
    appropriate structure to meet it. I do not believe we are there
    yet. I do not think you believe we are there yet. But I do want
    to hear you discuss what kind of energy you will put into that
    type of thinking and that topic, because I know it is going to
    be very easy to get into the cases and to get into the details
    and to forget the fact that at some point, as we are morphing
    our way toward a more robust and stable anti-cyber attack
    structure, we have got more work to do.
        Mr. Carlin. I do share your concern, Senator. The threat is
    here, and it is growing, and we can anticipate it will continue
    to grow over the years to come. I think the Government has
    taken significant steps to try to transform to meet that
    threat, but there is much more that we can and should do. And
    at the National Security Division, we just recently have tried
    to uncork the ingenuity and thoughts and talents of the U.S.
    Attorneys across the country, all 94 U.S. Attorney's Offices,
    by having special training and having people dedicated to
    handling, on the one hand, sensitive sources and methods that
    you need to be able to handle in national security threats and,
    on the other hand, the specific expertise on how to handle
    cyber intrusions while at the same time working with the FBI to
    try to ensure that matters that are being viewed as
    intelligence are shared with prosecutors so that, if there are
    Article III options, they can be preserved for later down the
    road--the same type of thinking that we have used in our
    transformation to face the terrorist threat. And I do believe
    that, in addition to working case by case, we need to continue
    to work as a Government and with this body on what the best
    approach, strategic approach is overall going forward.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let me also just take this
    opportunity to thank you and Senator Blumenthal for the very
    strong effort that was put into trying to come up with a cyber
    bill that would help this work forward. And I know that you and
    Senator Blumenthal and other Members of this Committee are
    very, very committed to making sure that our cyber structure is
    the right structure in the long term to address this threat.
    And so I think Mr. Carlin can expect continued interest from
    this Committee in that subject, and I do want to thank Senator
    Blumenthal and Senator Coons for their leadership.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, and thank you
    for your tireless work on keeping us safe from the cyber
    threat.
        Senator Sessions.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank all
    of you and congratulations on being nominated to august Federal
    positions. I know your families are proud of you, and we all
    recognize the challenges you are facing, and I am sure you will
    be able to meet those, if confirmed.
        Let me ask you, Mr. Carlin, just yesterday in The
    Washington Post, there was an article by Adam Goldman: ``U.S.
    officials suspect that a former Guantanamo Bay detainee played
    a role in the attack on the American diplomatic compound in
    Benghazi, Libya, and are planning to designate the group he
    leads as a foreign terrorist organization, according to
    officials.''
        ``Militiamen under the command of Abu Sufian bin Qumu, the
    leader of Ansar al-Sharia in the Libyan city of Darnah,
    participated in the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador
    Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, U.S. officials
    said.''
        ``In 2007, Qumu was released from the U.S. prison at
    Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and sent to Libya, where he was detained.
    The . . . government released him [a year later] in 2008.''
        Do you recognize there is a need in a time of war to detain
    hostile combatants until the war is over?
        Mr. Carlin. Yes, sir. We are a Nation that is still at war,
    and pursuant to this body's Authorized Use of Military Force, a
    war specifically against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and its
    associated forces. And at the National Security Division it is
    a threat and a responsibility we take seriously day in, day
    out. There is a determined enemy who wants to attack and bring
    harm to the United States both here and to our citizens abroad,
    and we need to use all of the tools that you grant us in our
    toolkit to deter and disrupt those who would try to cause us
    harm.
        Senator Sessions. I absolutely agree that you should use,
    it is your duty to use the lawful tools you have been given to
    protect the people of the United States and our Ambassadors
    from attacks. And it is disappointing to see that this releasee
    was a leader actually in that attack, and we have had others
    that have been released also returning to the fight.
        And so you have that responsibility, and I sense that you
    understand it. Is that correct? And you will be willing to
    speak out against those who do not understand those
    responsibilities and do not understand traditional rules of
    warfare?
        Mr. Carlin. Yes, sir, we certainly do understand that
    responsibility, and in my role, and if confirmed, I will
    provide my honest and frank guidance to any consideration on
    any national security threat.
        Senator Sessions. And you will, when necessary, object or
    make known your objection if someone above you desires to do
    otherwise?
        Mr. Carlin. Sir, as a lifelong Government servant, I think
    we have a duty and we arrive at the best decisions when people
    who are asked for their opinion give a frank and honest opinion
    for those internal deliberations.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I will
    expect that you will do that, protecting the people of the
    United States as the law allows you to do.
        Mr. Adegbile--is that correct?
        Mr. Adegbile. That counts, Senator.
        Senator Sessions. Close enough.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Sessions. Close enough for Government work. You
    will answer when called that.
        You have been a long-time counsel at the NAACP Legal
    Defense Fund, which has a historic record of advocacy and
    defense of civil rights and has achieved much respect in those
    efforts over the years. But it is a leading advocacy
    institution also. Civil rights can be stretched, it appears to
    me, to cover political agendas sometimes and go beyond what
    true civil rights are and can be used as a mechanism to advance
    a political agenda. I am sure you would essentially agree with
    that concern.
        Recently Attorney General Holder, before the Mexican
    American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said this:
    ``Creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million
    unauthorized immigrants in this country is essential. The way
    we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented--by
    creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out
    of the shadows--transcends the issue of immigration status.
    This is a matter of civil and human rights.''
        Do you believe that an individual who entered the country
    unlawfully has a civil right to citizenship in America?
        Mr. Adegbile. Senator, my understanding is that the
    Congress sets the laws with respect to immigration, and only
    after those laws are set, if certain of the laws are designated
    for enforcement responsibility to the Civil Rights Division,
    would the Civil Rights Division act in that scenario.
        Senator Sessions. Well, your boss-to-be, Attorney General
    Holder, has said plainly, it seems to me, that persons who
    violate the United States immigration laws and who enter the
    country have a civil right to even citizenship. Do you agree
    with that or not?
        Mr. Adegbile. Well, I am just hearing this statement now,
    and I take it that what may be at the source of the Attorney
    General's comment is that in certain circumstances people who
    are vulnerable or not properly documented can be preyed upon
    because of their status, and there are certain circumstances in
    which such people would need the protection of law enforcement
    and others to make sure that their rights are not violated as
    human beings and as persons under the Constitution.
        Senator Sessions. Peter Kirsanow, who is a member of the
    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, did a blog recently that said,
    ``To equate amnesty for breaking the Nation's immigration laws
    with civil rights betrays an incoherent and ahistorical
    understanding of the civil rights movement. Law-abiding black
    citizens in the United States were not seeking exemption from
    law. They were seeking the application of such laws in the
    manner that were applied to whites.'' Would you agree with that
    statement?
        Mr. Adegbile. I can commit to you that my understanding of
    our long history is that many groups have come to hold up the
    Constitution and try to narrow the space between the practice
    on the ground and our high goals that we set for ourselves. And
    if confirmed as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, I
    assure you that I will give fidelity to the law and enforce the
    laws as they are given by this Senate and the House of
    Representatives and duly signed by the President.
        Senator Sessions. Well, my time is up. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
        Senator Franken.
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Adegbile----
        Mr. Adegbile. That is full credit, Senator.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Franken. As a Nation, we have made great strides on
    the road toward equality for LGBT citizens, and the Civil
    Rights Division of the Department of Justice has been
    instrumental in that progress. But there is still work to be
    done. Every day, students who are or are perceived to be
    lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender are subjected to
    bullying and harassment in our schools. In fact, one out of
    every three LGBT students in our country reports having missed
    a day of school recently because he or she felt unsafe in
    school.
        I have introduced legislation in the Senate, the Student
    Nondiscrimination Act, to ensure that LGBT students have the
    same rights against discrimination as other students have.
        If you are chosen to be head of the Civil Rights Division,
    how will you work with schools to address the discrimination
    that LGBT students so often face?
        Mr. Adegbile. Thank you, Senator. This is a very important
    issue. I have sitting behind me my two daughters who are
    school-aged, and it is something that we talk about a fair
    amount. Bullying can really reduce the opportunity of children
    to learn and, as you have described, even lead kids not to want
    to go to school. I commit to you that, if confirmed as
    Assistant Attorney General, I will focus on the laws and
    enforce them vigorously in all areas. The educational area is
    something that is part of the soaring story of American justice
    and of civil rights, and as we learn it, as new statutes are
    passed, I think it is important to focus on them and enforce
    them where applicable on the facts and the law.
        Senator Franken. Well, I hope through this measure, which
    has the support of every Member of the majority of this
    Committee and on the HELP Committee, I hope we are able to do
    that, because through the Civil Rights Act in 1964 we protected
    people by virtue of their race or color, to the Americans With
    Disabilities Act we have given those kind of rights to people
    with disabilities. To me the LGBT community now deserves the
    same kind of rights.
        Mr. Carlin, if you are confirmed to this position, you will
    hold one of the Nation's most important positions on national
    security. Senator Grassley talked about the President's review
    group on surveillance, and they made some recommendations. And
    I did speak to the group. I know that your Department has but
    you have not. They made some major recommendations about how
    our Nation's surveillance programs should be reformed, and I
    know that your answer to Senator Grassley was that you are kind
    of reviewing this and this is being reviewed in the Department.
        But among other things, the group urged the passage of
    legislation to give the American people more information about
    the total number of Americans that, this information, are being
    caught up in these surveillance programs and to give the
    American people more information about that. I have a
    bipartisan transparency bill that would do just that.
        Do you agree, Mr. Carlin, with the President's review group
    that the American people need to have more information about
    our Nation's surveillance programs?
        Mr. Carlin. Thank you for that question, Senator, and for
    your leadership on the issue of transparency in terms of our
    use of national security authorities. The law enforcement/
    national security community and our Government need the support
    and trust of the American people to do our jobs day in and day
    out, and so I think it is, as the President said, incumbent
    upon us to be as transparent as we can while preserving the
    sensitive sources and methods, to be as transparent as we can
    with the American people so that they have that trust and
    confidence.
        And so as we discussed when we met, I think we need to work
    and, if confirmed, we would work within the National Security
    Division to try to ensure across the board that, when we can,
    we can share as much information as possible with the American
    people.
        Senator Franken. And do you think that possibly we have
    been erring on the overly conservative side in terms of
    transparency and that the recommendations of the President's
    review group are going in the right direction?
        Mr. Carlin. I will say this: I think there has been an
    unprecedented effort over the last several months or close to a
    year to declassify thousands of pages of previously classified
    documents in order to share information, and that as we look
    forward and try to hit the right balance between the steps that
    we need to take to protect us from national security threats,
    which are real and present, while at the same time both
    ensuring that we preserve our treasured values in terms of
    civil liberties and civil rights, and also that we maintain the
    confidence of the American public. We are at a stage right now
    where we need to take, it seems, additional steps to assure
    that the public on the tools that we are using, and I think we
    are rightly headed in that direction.
        Senator Franken. Well, thank you. My time has expired.
    Thank you for your answers.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator Franken.
        Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Let me begin by thanking all
    of the nominees for your public service and your willingness to
    devote yourselves to continued public service, and my thanks
    also to your families who have shared and will continue to
    share that burden of long hours and sometimes little
    appreciation from the public for the work that you do.
        I want to say to the judicial nominees that your work is so
    critical to the credibility and trust of the public in our
    justice system. You will be the voice and face of justice to
    countless individuals who come before your court and who will
    seek redress and justice from you. And as one who has been in
    the Federal courts for several decades, I appreciate the very
    hard work that you will devote to this immensely important
    task. And I look forward to supporting you and hope that I am
    not premature in congratulating you but thanking you for the
    great work that you are going to do.
        To Mr. Adegbile, I congratulate you on your Connecticut
    connection through Connecticut College. I am not going to sing
    the fight song here, as Senator Schumer no doubt could for
    Dalton. But I want to first of all ask you about the NAACP
    Legal Defense Fund and other organizations like it that play
    such a critical role in our justice system, and most
    particularly during what Senator Schumer rightly referred to as
    ``a dark period'' when the Civil Rights Division was not as
    active as it has been under President Obama.
        Could you tell me about the partnership that you foresee
    between the Civil Rights Division and those organizations if
    you are confirmed?
        Mr. Adegbile. Certainly. Thanks for the question, Senator.
    So civil rights organizations play a vital function as private
    attorneys general to enforce many of the statutes in the civil
    rights pantheon that allow individuals or groups to bring cases
    to vindicate the principles of the law. The understanding has
    been that while the Justice Department is terrific and central
    to the effort, in certain circumstances more resources are
    needed, and we cannot have too much equality is part of the
    concept.
        There needs to be a conversation between groups and the
    Justice Department. However, in my role, if confirmed as
    Assistant Attorney General, I am crystal clear that I will step
    over from being an advocate for a particular group and
    particular clients to enforcing the laws of the United States.
    And so what I would expect is that there will be open streams
    of communication within the bounds of ethical rules and
    considerations, but that the goal is to enforce the laws of the
    United States within our best judgment and with the advice of
    the long-serving, able public servants in the United States
    Department of Justice.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Mr. Carlin, I know you are familiar with the
    recommendations made by the President's Panel on Intelligence
    Reform, and in particular, as you may know, I have proposed
    that there be a constitutional advocate to protect privacy
    rights and civil liberties and that there be a more adversarial
    process before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court
    as well as a different method of appointing that court to make
    it more transparent and accountable, to make sure that the
    court really functions as a court, hearing both sides not just
    one side, not just the Government's side but also an advocate
    to really represent the contrary side when there are questions,
    important questions, of law or fact to be decided.
        I wonder if you could give me your views on that aspect of
    the President's panel.
        Mr. Carlin. Well, thank you, Senator. I think that in terms
    of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, there are
    certain cases that involve significant interpretations of the
    law where the court may decide that it would benefit from the
    view of another party, and that we have discussed and I think
    the Deputy Attorney General has testified before that it would
    be open to proposals along that line to both ensure a full
    briefing before the court and also to provide that sense of
    trust and accountability to the American people for the
    decisions that are ultimately made.
        Senator Blumenthal. And would you not agree that the
    advocate ought to be involved in deciding whether a particular
    request for a warrant or other surveillance or search raises
    that kind of significant issue? In other words, it should not
    be just the court that decides the advocate is involved but the
    advocate as well?
        Mr. Carlin. So I think that the President and the
    administration are still studying a variety of ideas and inputs
    from different groups on that issue, and what they are seeking
    to do in terms of an ultimate determination is to try to reach
    the right balance between the really unique and distinctly
    American system that we have set up that involves all three
    branches of Government for the conduct of our foreign
    intelligence activities. It was dating back to 1978 and the
    original passage of FISA. We have been searching in the current
    debate to look for other models or systems across the world,
    and we have not found one that----
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, we do have a distinctly American
    judicial system that involves, in fact, hearing both sides of
    the argument in open court, especially when there are searches
    and seizures. One of the reasons why that distinctly American
    system developed in rebellion against the English was secret
    courts doing general warrants. And so I would submit
    respectfully that that distinctly American system involves
    exactly what the President's panel recommended, namely, an
    advocate, an open system where possible, more transparency, as
    Senator Franken has suggested, and hope that you will consider
    supporting that kind of proposal.
        I want to thank both Mr. Carlin and Mr. Adegbile for your
    service, your extraordinary service over many years already,
    and the continued service that you will provide for our Nation.
    Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
        While I appreciate that we have had a broad and vigorous
    exchange of views with Mr. Carlin and Mr. Adegbile, I am going
    to turn to our judicial nominees, if I might, for a few
    moments. But first I simply wanted to say that I strongly
    endorse Senator Blumenthal's leadership on suggesting that we
    would strengthen transparency in the performance of the FISA
    Courts by having a public advocate. I think that is a strong
    proposal, and I think both Senator Franken and Senator
    Whitehouse and Senator Blumenthal raised important points about
    transparency, accountability, and about the cyber threat and
    defending American innovations and inventions. And hopefully we
    will have a few minutes to explore some other areas of great
    interest to me, and I am grateful to all of you for your public
    service and to your families for supporting you through this
    hearing and through what I am sure have already been long and
    challenging careers in public service that will hopefully
    continue for quite some time.
        So if I might, Ms. Talwani, Ms. Rosenstengel, and Mr.
    Peterson, if you would just in order describe your judicial
    philosophy for this Committee, please?
        Ms. Talwani. I am not used to labeling it as a ``judicial
    philosophy,'' but I feel very strongly about the role of a
    district judge and a district court, which is to decide that
    case that is in front of the judge right then based on the
    applicable law. And that is what I intend to do.
        Ms. Rosenstengel. Thank you. I would agree with Ms. Talwani
    and say that my judicial philosophy would be to follow the rule
    of law at all times and to decide cases and issues before me
    promptly without bias, sympathy, or prejudice.
        Mr. Peterson. I also agree that I do not have a judicial
    philosophy in the sense of the concept that I have some
    preconceived approach to deciding the results of any particular
    case. As a district court judge, if I were confirmed, I would
    do my best to comply with Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil
    Procedure, which suggests, indeed requires that we do all we
    can to secure the just, speedy, and in expensive resolution of
    matters. So I would have a philosophy as a district court judge
    that people would get early trial dates, the trial dates would
    be firm, I would work hard to decide motions promptly, and so
    people would get a decision that is thorough, well reasoned,
    understandable, and prompt.
        Senator Coons. Admirable. It would be great if this
    institution was also thorough and prompt.
        If I might, working backward, Mr. Peterson, Ms.
    Rosenstengel, and Ms. Talwani, what do you see as your role in
    ensuring fair and equal access to justice in this country for
    the litigants who might appear before you in your court?
        Mr. Peterson. I think one of the great virtues of our
    American justice system is that once you get into a court,
    particularly a Federal court, it does not matter if you are
    rich or poor or have resources. You get the same kind of
    decision regardless of your resources.
        I think the district courts have an important role in
    ensuring that people who might not be able to afford lavish
    representation or even sometimes basic representation get a
    fair hearing despite that. So, for example, in the Western
    District of Wisconsin, we have very able pro se clerks that
    handle cases that are brought by unrepresented individuals, and
    those individuals, despite lack of counsel, get a very thorough
    and fair hearing.
        Ms. Rosenstengel. I would like to echo Mr. Peterson's
    remarks. I would say that it is important as a judge, and I
    would if confirmed, give every case the same consideration and
    be available for the parties and the lawyers on the case. And
    as Mr. Peterson said, it is important to make sure that those
    who do not have the same resources as others may have access to
    justice.
        One of the things I have done as the clerk of court is to
    develop a panel of lawyers to represent indigent people before
    the court so that we have a panel of people we can represent
    and to assist those so that they have an equal footing as any
    other litigant would in the court.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Ms. Rosenstengel.
        Ms. Talwani.
        Ms. Talwani. I would just add that litigation is incredibly
    expensive, and I would be very conscious of the time that cases
    take and how that burdens both parties, and try to move cases
    expeditiously, have firm case management procedures, and just
    try to ensure that litigation is not more expensive than it
    needs to be.
        Senator Coons. A last question, if I might, for our
    judicial nominees, and also for Mr. Adegbile. Our legal system
    relies fundamentally on active advocacy before the bench on
    parties who heighten the differences and, thus, zealous
    advocacy. You bring a variety of strengths and skills and
    backgrounds to your potential service on the bench. How would
    you distinguish between a period when you were before the bench
    as an advocate and the period you might soon enter where you
    are serving on the bench? Or how would you differentiate your
    experience and service as an effective advocate for LDF and now
    as someone charged with enforcing law for all the people of the
    United States? If we might, Ms. Talwani, and then move to our
    left.
        Ms. Talwani. Thank you. There is no question that the roles
    are very, very different. If confirmed, I would strive to
    ensure an absence of bias in decisionmaking, that decisions are
    based on the facts and the law best applicable. It differs from
    the role of an advocate where you can be open to different
    possible views but you do not have to sit and make the final
    decision which is necessarily the one that you would say will
    be right at the end. And I believe it is a very different role,
    and I would strive, if confirmed, to ensure the most objective
    decisionmaking possible.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Ms. Talwani.
        Ms. Rosenstengel.
        Ms. Rosenstengel. I agree that it is a very different role.
    As an advocate, you know your client's position and advocate
    that strongly and maybe anticipate the other side, but do not
    study it as well.
        As a judge, it is the judge's responsibility to understand
    both sides of the argument, to research everything presented to
    the judge, and come to a fair resolution of the case. The bulk
    of my career has been approaching issues from an impartial
    standpoint and trying to understand both sides, and I think
    that is important and something that, if confirmed, I would
    respect and follow.
        Mr. Peterson. I have been an advocate. That has been an
    important part of my role as a lawyer. But I have also been a
    counselor, which I think in many cases an even more important
    role for my clients. And as a counselor, I help them not
    advance a particular position in a forum, but to help them
    deliberate about what really is the right thing to do. That I
    think is excellent preparation of the role of the judge. And so
    if I am confirmed, I think it is a transition from advocate to
    a more deliberative decider. I think it is a transition that I
    would be ready and well prepared to make.
        Senator Coons. Thank you.
        Mr. Adegbile.
        Mr. Adegbile. I think it is fair to say that in both
    contexts, representing your clients zealously and ably is
    important. That is consistent in both contexts. What is
    different is that as a law enforcement officer for the United
    States of America, the portfolio is much broader; the range of
    statutes that you are called upon to enforce touch a wide array
    of aspects of life in our great Nation. And it is very
    important in both contexts, I guess, to make sure that the
    institutional integrity is there so that you can do your job
    effectively, and also to have an eye toward the people that you
    are trying to serve.
        If lucky enough to be confirmed as Assistant Attorney
    General, the people that I will be serving are the people of
    the United States of America.
        Senator Coons. Thank you.
        Senator Grassley.
        Senator Grassley. I am just going to question the judge
    nominees at this point, but I do have some followup questions
    that I am going to submit in writing for the Justice Department
    nominees.
        [The questions of Ranking Member Grassley appear as
    submissions for the record.]
        Senator Grassley. I am going to start with Mr. Peterson.
    You have done some pro bono work on behalf of the Freedom from
    Religion Foundation, filing a Supreme Court brief in two
    Establishment Clause cases, McCreary and Van Orden. You have
    argued against Ten Commandments display on Government
    properties. In one case, you argued that a particular display
    had the effect of ``casting non-believers as outsiders to the
    political community.'' I am not here to question your belief in
    regard to that, but since you are going to be a judge and be
    impartial, I have a two-part question:
        How does that statement affect your view? And what
    assurances could you give the Committee that you would be fair
    to all litigants who come before you and, in particular, those
    of religious faith who may be concerned about your advocacy on
    behalf of non-theism?
        Mr. Peterson. The first part of the answer is really very
    simple. My personal views would play no role whatsoever in my
    decisionmaking on constitutional issues involving any aspect of
    the First Amendment or any other constitutional provision.
        My work on behalf of the Freedom from Religion Foundation
    was on behalf of a former and long-time client of the firm. It
    was not pro bono work. It was engaged work that we had done. My
    firm has a long history of advocating on behalf of the First
    Amendment interests of a wide variety of clients across the
    political spectrum. I consider it a great honor to have worked
    on matters that are of great importance on the First Amendment.
        As I said, we have represented the whole political spectrum
    on those issues, and I would take every case as it comes and
    decide it according to the law. The position that we advocated
    on behalf of the Freedom from Religion Foundation was
    vindicated in one of the Supreme Court cases, rejected in
    another. Those decisions are by definition right. They are from
    the Supreme Court, and I would follow them to the letter, sir.
        Senator Grassley. Thank you.
        I will now go to Ms. Rosenstengel. From your resume, there
    is some--it is quite obvious, and not to discriminate against
    you on this basis, but somewhat limited experience as a
    practicing attorney, appear to have no experience with criminal
    law, so a two-part question:
        Describe how you would prepare yourself for the job of
    district court judge. And then as a law clerk, what qualities
    did you admire about the judge you worked for, and how would
    you be different from that person?
        Ms. Rosenstengel. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
        First, how would I prepare myself? I would study the
    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Criminal Procedure. Again,
    I was very familiar with them as a law clerk. During you time
    as clerk of court, I have stayed abreast of Seventh Circuit and
    Supreme Court jurisprudence, and I would continue to do that.
        The quality I admired most about Judge Murphy, the judge
    for whom I clerked, was he was very decisive. he worked hard.
    He held hearings on all dispositive motions and had the parties
    and the lawyers before him, and that is something that I would
    hope to follow. I think there is a lot of value to having the
    lawyers in court. He was very firm about setting deadlines and
    expecting lawyers to meet them, and that is also a trait that I
    would hope to follow.
        Senator Grassley. And for you, Ms. Talwani, you have been
    an advocate throughout your career, including with some labor
    organizations. How will you make the transition from being an
    advocate in the way you were--and I do not disparage that--to
    being an impartial mediator?
        Ms. Talwani. Thank you for that question. I would start by
    saying that I very much understand how different the roles are,
    and I also realize an importance in the practice, the advocacy
    that I did, that I was able to represent parties both as
    plaintiffs and as defendants. In representing unions, there
    have been cases where, for example, the union would not take an
    employee's case to a grievance because it was, in the union's
    view, without merit, and the employee will turn around and sue
    both the employer and the union. And so I have seen cases from
    both sides, despite our institutional clients being unions over
    many of these years.
        That said, I am very aware of having represented particular
    clients, particular types of matters, and realized that I need
    to ensure that I do not make assumptions, that I am aware of
    any potential bias, and that I am very, very rigorous in being
    objective about the cases in front of me.
        Senator Grassley. Okay. Are there any characteristics of
    any Federal judges that you would seek to avoid if you were
    confirmed?
        Ms. Talwani. Yes.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Grassley. Maybe an example or two without naming
    the judge?
        Ms. Talwani. I think impatience from the bench is
    counterproductive. I think that a judge needs to enforce order
    and civility, but I do not think that judges should in any
    circumstance be overly--or should be disrespectful at all to
    the people who appear in front of them.
        I guess the other thing I will be very careful of is
    interjecting reasonings and decisions that have not had an
    opportunity for exploration through the adversarial process,
    where a judge comes up with their own solution to the problem--
    which may be appropriate. There may be, for example, a
    jurisdiction issue that the parties did not consider. I will
    endeavor, if that comes up, to ensure that the parties have an
    opportunity through the adversarial process to address those
    issues.
        Senator Grassley. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to all of you.
        Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Senator Grassley. And
    to Mr. Carlin, to Mr. Adegbile, to Mr. Peterson, to Ms.
    Rosenstengel, to Ms. Talwani, and to your families and
    supporters, thank you so much for your appearance before this
    Committee today.
        We will keep the record open for a week for those Members
    of the Committee who have questions they would like to submit
    in writing but who were not able to join us today.
        With that, this hearing is hereby adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    NOMINATIONS OF HON. STEVEN PAUL LOGAN, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
                         THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA; JOHN
    JOSEPH TUCHI, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA;
                        DIANE J. HUMETEWA, NOMINEE TO BE
     DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA; ROSEMARY MARQUEZ, NOMINEE
       TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA; HON. DOUGLAS L.
     RAYES, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA; AND
    HON. JAMES ALAN SOTO, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF
                                    ARIZONA

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2014

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
    Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mazie Hirono,
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Hirono and Flake.
        Senator Hirono. The Committee will come to order. Good
    morning, everyone. We are expecting Senator McCain to come, and
    when he does, I will certainly acknowledge and defer to him for
    his introductions.
        In fact, here he is. Speak and you shall be answered. Good
    morning, Senator McCain.
        Senator McCain. Good morning. Thank you.
        Senator Hirono. Yes, and I just called the hearing to
    order. I am pleased to call this nomination to order. I would
    like to welcome each of the nominees, their families, and
    friends to the U.S. Senate and congratulate all of you on your
    nominations. And, of course, I would like to once again welcome
    Senator McCain and my colleague on the Committee, Senator
    Flake, who will be the Ranking Member this morning.
        Would you like to introduce Senator McCain? I would like to
    defer to you, Senator Flake.
        Senator Flake. I appreciate the nominees coming, and
    spouses and family members and friends. A full room. It is not
    often you get to introduce six nominations of one State and
    just have one State here at the hearing, too. So this is great.
    We have been waiting in Arizona for a long time for this, and
    so we are excited to have you all here.
        I will go ahead and ask Senator McCain if he wants to give
    brief remarks and introduce each of the nominees, and then we
    will go from there, and thank you all again for being here.
    Thank you, Senator McCain.

    PRESENTATION OF HON. STEVEN PAUL LOGAN, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT
     JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA; JOHN JOSEPH TUCHI, NOMINEE
      TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA; DIANE J.
      HUMETEWA, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF
                                ARIZONA;
    ROSEMARY MARQUEZ, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT
    OF ARIZONA; HON. DOUGLAS L. RAYES, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA; AND HON. JAMES ALAN SOTO, NOMINEE
                                   TO
             BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA,
     BY HON. JOHN McCAIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        Senator McCain. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank
    you for your kind words. I would like to thank Chairman Leahy
    and Ranking Member Grassley for their hard work in bringing
    these well-qualified nominees to the Committee for its
    consideration. I am proud to have a partnership with Senator
    Flake in this process, and I believe that today is a great day
    for Arizona.
        You will be hearing today from six nominees to the United
    States District Court for the District of Arizona. As the
    Committee well knows, this is a court that has been under great
    strain recently. While it has been consistently ranked as one
    of the top ten busiest courts in the country, it has been
    strained by a series of recent vacancies. Of the 13 authorized
    judgeships in this court, 6 are currently vacant. For that
    reason, the District of Arizona has been declared a ``judicial
    emergency.''
        To fill these longstanding vacancies, I considered the
    views of a nonpartisan Judiciary Evaluation Commission that
    Senator Flake and I were heavily engaged in, and the President
    ultimately nominated a diverse and historic slate of State
    court judges, former prosecutors, and other fine Arizona
    citizens. Whether in combat zones overseas, among some of
    Arizona's great Native American tribes, or in courtrooms
    zealously advocating the interests of the people within their
    communities, each of these nominees has shown in their own
    unique way that they understand what it means to serve.
        Each also understands the magnitude of the commitment they
    would undertake if they are confirmed to do justice, and each
    has evidenced the judicial temperament and professional
    demeanor needed to serve on the bench ably and with integrity.
    None of those qualities is apparent in Senator Flake or me.
        With this in mind, it is my honor to introduce you to first
    Judge Steven Paul Logan, who is nominated to the District of
    Arizona Phoenix Division. Judge Logan currently serves as
    magistrate judge on that court. For over a decade, Judge Logan
    was an Assistant United States Attorney where he prosecuted a
    wide range of cases, ranging from immigration violations to
    murder for hire and public corruption. During that time he
    served three tours with the Marine Corps in Afghanistan and
    Iraq, where we originally crossed paths during my visit to
    Fallujah in 2007.
        During those deployments, Judge Logan served as senior
    defense counsel and senior legal mentor to the Afghan National
    Army, among others. Judge Logan's service to our country
    continues today. He is currently a colonel and serves on the
    Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. Judge Logan's
    experience as a military trial judge, immigration judge, and
    Federal magistrate judge uniquely qualifies him to serve as an
    Article III judge in the District of Arizona.
        Second is John Joseph Tuchi, who has been nominated to the
    District of Arizona in Phoenix. After law school, he clerked
    for Judge William Canby of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Ninth Circuit. In private practice he gained experience in
    intellectual property and complex commercial litigation as well
    as appellate law.
        As a career Federal prosecutor in Arizona, he spent his
    life fighting on the side of victims and currently serves as
    Chief Assistant United States Attorney. His dedication to
    public service, extensive trial experience, and practice before
    Federal courts will prove valuable if he is confirmed to the
    Federal District Court in Arizona.
        It has been said that the Arizona bench ``would be enriched
    by a member who reflects the community it serves.'' With that
    in mind, I am particularly excited about our third nominee,
    Diane J. Humetewa, also to the District of Arizona in Phoenix.
    Ms. Humetewa's nomination is truly historic. Being a member of
    the Hopi Nation, if Ms. Humetewa is confirmed, she would be the
    first Native American woman to ever serve on the Federal bench.
    Ms. Humetewa's service to the Hopi Nation, which includes work
    as a prosecutor and an appellate judge to the tribe, runs deep
    and has remained a cornerstone of her career. She is also a
    long-time advocate for victims' rights, which can be traced
    back to her service as a victim advocate before she attended
    law school.
        During law school Ms. Humetewa spent a semester working as
    an intern on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and after
    law school returned to DC to work on my staff on that
    Committee, this time as Deputy Counsel. Her distinguished
    career at the Department of Justice includes work as a special
    assistant to the Office of Tribal Justice. In 2007, I
    recommended her for nomination as U.S. Attorney for the
    District of Arizona, where she served for 2 years with
    distinction. Today Ms. Humetewa works as special advisor and
    counsel at Arizona State University.
        Fourth, I would like to introduce you to Rosemary Marquez.
    Ms. Marquez, who is nominated as district judge to the Tucson
    Division, has worked as a prosecutor and a public defender in
    Pima County and later as a Federal public defender. Since 2000
    she has worked in private practice with a focus on Federal
    criminal defense. Ms. Marquez's extensive experience in border
    districts and her Hispanic heritage will be invaluable assets
    to the Federal court in Tucson where a large portion of the
    docket is devoted to immigration-related issues.
        Our fifth nominee is Judge Douglas Rayes, nominated to the
    Federal court in Phoenix. Judge Rayes currently serves as
    Maricopa County Superior Court Judge, a position he has held
    since 2000. At that court he has presided over thousands of
    cases in family law, criminal law, and complex civil
    litigation. He has also held a number of leadership positions
    devoted to training and equipping fellow judges and improving
    processes in the court. He has an impressive background
    handling personal injury, medical malpractice cases, and police
    disciplinary matters during his 18 years in private practice
    representing both plaintiffs and defendants in complex matters.
        Finally, I would like to introduce you to Judge James Alan
    Soto, who is nominated as district judge to the Tucson
    Division. He gained extensive experience in private practice on
    a diverse array of cases ranging from criminal defense to civil
    litigation and commercial law. He ran his own practice for much
    of that time. As a native of Nogales, Arizona, a deputy city
    attorney for border communities, and as a long-time judge in
    Santa Cruz County, Judge Soto has extensive experience in the
    legal issues unique to our border, including cases involving
    immigration, drug trafficking, and various aspects of the
    Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Judge Soto's ability to understand
    the very real implications of immigration law and those who
    live and work on the Mexico-Arizona border will be of great
    value to the Federal bench in Arizona.
        These are, of course, only snapshots of each of these
    nominees and their backgrounds. No remarks can do these
    nominees, their integrity, or their potential to serve ably and
    with distinction on the United States District Court for the
    District of Arizona service. But I hope my remarks are helpful,
    and I thank these nominees and their families for their
    willingness to continue serving the Nation, this time in the
    Federal judiciary.
        With that, I commend them to you for your consideration and
    encourage their swift confirmation by the full Senate.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you very much, Senator McCain.
        Senator McCain. And I again want to thank my partner,
    Senator Flake, who I think, given his experience and background
    and knowledge, has made a very important contribution to our
    partnership with so many others who have, a consensus
    nomination, approved and suggested these nominations.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you so much. Aloha.
        Senator Hirono. There are currently 95 district and circuit
    vacancies in the Federal judiciary. More than 10 percent of
    lower Federal courts are now or will soon be vacant, and as we
    heard from Senator McCain, this is very much the case in
    Arizona. More than a third of these vacancies are judicial
    emergencies.
        Indeed, if confirmed, all six of the nominees before the
    Committee today will be filling a judicial emergency for the
    District of Arizona. These vacancies have been open in one case
    for as long as 1,273 days. I applaud the efforts of my
    colleagues Senator Flake and McCain in working in a bipartisan
    fashion with the White House to fill these vacancies.
        Our Federal district and appellate courts hear tens of
    thousands of cases each year ranging from criminal prosecutions
    to complex environmental and consumer protection litigation.
    But in order for Americans to receive swift access to justice,
    these vacancies must be filled. The number of criminal cases
    has increased 70 percent in the past decade. Because Federal
    judges are required to give priority to criminal cases over
    civil ones, judges are forced sometimes to delay civil cases,
    often for years. This means long delays for American
    individuals and businesses seeking their day in court.
        This hearing is an important step in the process of working
    to confirm judges in an expeditious manner and ensuring that
    the courts are able to do the work the American people require
    of them. I look forward to the Senate's swift action on the
    President's nominations, and at this point if the nominees
    could come forward, I will be swearing you in.
        Can you raise your right hands, please? Oh, I will wait
    until you finish.
        Thank you. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are
    about to give to the Committee will be the truth, the whole
    truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
        Judge Logan. I do.
        Mr. Tuchi. I do.
        Ms. Humetewa. I do.
        Ms. Marquez. I do.
        Judge Rayes. I do.
        Judge Soto. I do.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you. Please be seated. And let the
    record show that the nominees have answered in the affirmative.
        I would now invite the nominees to say a few words and to
    recognize their loved ones and supporters, and we will start
    with Steven Logan, and we will move through.

              STATEMENT OF HON. STEVEN PAUL LOGAN, NOMINEE
            TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

        Judge Logan. Good morning, Madam Chair Hirono and Ranking
    Member Flake. I thank you for the invitation this morning. It
    is a real honor.
        I would also like to thank President Obama for the
    nomination and Senator McCain for his kind words and along with
    Senator Flake for their assistance in getting all of us here
    today.
        I would like to thank my family. I would not be here
    without such a great family. And my mother, May--she could not
    make it this morning--and my late father, David, I think they
    would be very proud, and I thank them for instilling in all of
    their children the values that, if you study, if you are
    respectful and dedicated, you can achieve all of your dreams.
        I would like to thank my wife, Raynette. Without her love
    and support, I would not be here right now.
        I would like to thank my four children. My oldest child,
    Rae, she is actually in attendance today. She is here from
    Portland, Oregon. My second child, Mariah, she is a junior at
    Marquette University. She could not make it. She is up there
    studying, hopefully.
        My third daughter, she is a senior in high school, and
    hopefully she is back home studying.
        And my fourth child is a little boy. His name is Jaden, and
    he is a little 8-year-old, and I hope he is doing okay in
    school today.
        I would like to thank my siblings. My oldest brother,
    David, is here from Simi Valley, California, and I also have my
    brother Danny in attendance with his lovely wife, Torri. They
    are here from San Antonio, Texas. And my sister, Donna, and my
    brother Tim could not make it. They had some work commitments.
        I have to thank my mother-in-law, Dr. Veronica Lindo, for
    assisting us with watching our youngest child while we are out
    of town, and I also would like to thank my Federal court family
    back in Phoenix. I thank my permanent law clerk, Molly
    Weinstein; my judicial assistant, Joanna Rosales; as well as my
    courtroom clerk, Marion Holmes.
        And last, but not least, I would like to thank all of those
    servicemembers that I have served with for 24 years,
    particularly my brothers and sisters in the United States
    Marine Corps.
        Thank you for your invitation. I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The biographical information of Judge Logan appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Senator Hirono. Mr. Tuchi.

     STATEMENT OF JOHN JOSEPH TUCHI, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

        Mr. Tuchi. Good morning, Chairwoman Hirono. I want to thank
    you and Ranking Member Flake for convening the hearing and the
    Committee for all of their work to make the hearing possible.
        Thank you to Senator McCain for the kind remarks about all
    of us, and thank you to President Obama for the nomination. It
    is truly a humbling thing to happen to somebody.
        I am very proud and pleased to have several members of my
    family that were able to come and share the day and the
    experience with me. I will briefly introduce them:
        My wife, Maria, who is sitting right behind me, and my wife
    of 25 years who is in her own right a superior court judge for
    the last 19 years in Arizona.
        Our children, Alex and Katie. Alex is 15 and Katie is 9,
    and maybe we are little more lax than the Logan family about
    letting them not study for a couple of days while they are
    here.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Tuchi. But they are going back tonight.
        My mother and father, Patricia and Ben Tuchi, are also
    here, were able to make the trip from Tucson, which makes me
    very, very happy and grateful; as well as my brother, Matt, who
    brought his family. His wife, Alison, and my nephew, Ben, and
    niece, Grace, are here as well.
        Finally, in my family, my Uncle Jim Tuchi came in from New
    Jersey, and my Aunt Barbara Tuchi came from California.
        And, last, we have two very close friends, people I have
    known since I was a baby, family friends Hiram and Inez Perez.
    Thank you for being here.
        I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The biographical information of Mr. Tuchi appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Senator Hirono. Thank you very much.

     STATEMENT OF DIANE J. HUMETEWA, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

        Ms. Humetewa. Good morning, Chair Hirono, Ranking Member
    Flake. I want to thank you and the Committee for considering my
    nomination along with the colleagues I have beside me.
        I also do want to express my deep gratitude to President
    Obama for the nomination. I am deeply honored and privileged to
    have that nomination.
        I also want to say thank you to Senator McCain for his kind
    remarks about me, and together he and Ranking Member Flake for
    convening the committee that vetted me and put my name forward
    for the potential nomination.
        I am very happy to be joined here by family members,
    friends, and former colleagues. My husband, Kevin, is here,
    along with my mother-in-law, Lynn. My sister and brother-in-
    law, Donna and Wilfred Kaye, have also traveled to be with me
    here today.
        Family friend Alfred Lomahquahu as well as several of my
    former colleagues, Julie and Cindy, are in the audience today.
        My parents, Don and Ella Humetewa, could not travel to be
    here, but they are hopefully seated in front of a computer
    somewhere on the Hopi Indian reservation watching this via
    webcam, in addition to a number of colleagues, former
    colleagues, friends, and associates who are watching these
    proceedings via webcam.
        I thank the Committee for its patience and for continuing
    to move ahead on our nominations, and I look forward to
    answering questions.
        Thank you.
        [The biographical information of Ms. Humetewa appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Senator Hirono. Thank you very much.

    STATEMENT OF ROSEMARY MARQUEZ, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
                        THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

        Ms. Marquez. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Senator
    Flake, and thank you to the entire Committee for their
    consideration of my nomination.
        I would also like to thank Senator McCain for his kind
    words and President Obama for the honor of this nomination.
        I am also very happy that my parents are here today. I
    would like to introduce them to you: my mother and father,
    Catalina and Miguel Marquez Hurtado. They are the reason why I
    am here today. My mother immigrated to the United States when
    she was just 16 years old. She came to the United States from
    Mexico by herself, and her and my father have worked tirelessly
    to make sure that their daughters receive an education and are
    able to achieve the American dream. So I am very thrilled to
    have them here with me today.
        Also here are my other set of parents, my in-laws, Helen
    Kroese and Kenneth Kroese, and they traveled here from Phoenix,
    Arizona.
        Also here is my sister, Leticia Marquez. She is an attorney
    in Tucson.
        And my husband, Kurt Kroese, he is also an attorney in
    Tucson, and he is here today. Frankly, without their love and
    support, this also would not be happening today. So thank you.
        My two beautiful children, Kenneth Kroese and Matias
    Kroese, are here today. Last year, they were fortunate enough
    to witness my sister argue before the U.S. Supreme Court, so
    hopefully they will find this just as entertaining.
        Dale Baige is here. I believe he made the red-eye trip, a
    friend of ours from Phoenix, and I would like to thank him for
    coming.
        I would also like to thank my brothers-in-law, Andy Kroese
    and Keith Kroese. I believe they are watching also on the
    webcast. And our other family and friends who have been very
    supportive, Scott Biagi, Lindsey Biagi, and I could go on and
    on, but thank you all for their support, and thank you for
    considering my nomination.
        [The biographical information of Ms. Marquez appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Mr. Rayes.

      STATEMENT OF HON. DOUGLAS L. RAYES, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT
                   JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

        Judge Rayes. Thank you, Madam Chairman Hirono. Thank you
    for holding this hearing and thank you, Senator Flake, for
    appearing and being here for the hearing as well.
        I want to thank Senator McCain for his kind words and
    President Obama for this nomination to this important position.
        With me today are my family: my wife, Sheri, seated behind
    me. Without her I would not be here today. We have been married
    35 years, in Charlottesville courthouse when I was in the Army
    JAG school.
        Also are my children: my oldest son, Josh, is a second-year
    law student at ASU; my daughter works in Boulder, Colorado, in
    IT sales. My two younger sons are twins. They are at ASU. One
    is in undergraduate school and also works in the airline
    industry, and my other son runs for the ASU track team.
        With me also is my sister, Emily, Dr. Emily Rayes from
    North Carolina. She came here with her husband, Bill. Excuse
    me. Her name is no longer Rayes. It is Drinkard. I am sorry.
    And my cousin, Nick Rayes, and his wife, Carol.
        We also have friends here, Nina and Bob, and a friend from
    Phoenix, David Lee.
        Back home watching on webcam are my staff and colleagues
    and many friends there as well as my mentors throughout the
    course of my career: Pat McGroder, Ralph Blake, and Joe Gama.
        I also want to mention my dad and mom. They are not able to
    make it here. They are in Globe, Arizona, hopefully watching us
    on the webcam. And my parents-in-law are watching in Cedar
    Rapids.
        [The biographical information of Judge Rayes appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES ALAN SOTO, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

        Judge Soto. Good morning, Senator Hirono and Senator Flake,
    and thank you very much for presiding over this hearing.
        I would also like to thank Senator Leahy and Ranking Member
    Grassley for expediting the nomination hearings for the
    contingent from Arizona. And I certainly appreciate that, and I
    thank all Members of the Committee.
        I would like to pay a special thanks to Senator McCain and
    to Senator Flake for coming together and working with the
    administration to come up with a slate of nominees to serve
    what is an important process in Arizona. As you know, there is
    a shortage of Federal judges in Arizona, and it was their
    coming together and arriving at a consensus that expedited this
    process. I would also like to thank Senator McCain for his very
    kind words in his introductory remarks.
        I would also like to thank the President of the United
    States for his confidence in me and nominating me to this very,
    very important position.
        I have a number of family members that are here with me
    today. My wife of 39 years, a little longer than Doug, is
    seated directly behind me. She just retired as a school teacher
    after many years as a teacher.
        I also have my three children here, and my oldest son is
    married, and my daughter-in-law is here. My oldest son, David,
    and his wife, Eugenia, live in Brooklyn, New York, and they
    have traveled down to Washington for the hearing today.
        My other son, Matthew, resides in Tempe, Arizona, and my
    daughter, Julia, resides in Phoenix, Arizona, and they have all
    traveled here today.
        I have a younger brother--I refer to him as ``my baby
    brother'' because he is quite a bit younger, but he is here
    with us today. He is an attorney in Phoenix and practices law
    in Phoenix. I have other brothers and sisters who could not
    make it here today but who are watching the proceedings today
    through the webcast.
        I would be remiss if I did not mention my parents and my
    grandparents, who, as I grew up, provided a lot of inspiration
    to me. They taught me the value of hard work and commitment,
    and they taught me the importance of truth and integrity, and I
    think their inspiration to me and the lessons they taught me
    have served me well during my life.
        I look forward to answering any questions that you might
    have for me.
        [The biographical information of Judge Soto appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Senator Hirono. Thank you very much.
        Before we start with our 5 minutes, or a little bit longer,
    of questions, Senator Flake would like to say a few words.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FLAKE,
                A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        Senator Flake. Well, thank you all for being here, and I
    appreciate Senator McCain coming in and making the
    introductions. And I do not need to go through everybody's bio
    again, but I just want to say what a pleasure it has been to go
    through this process. I am new to the Senate, have just been
    here a year, and it is pretty unprecedented to have six
    nominees at one time come together, and so it was really a
    baptism by fire in this process for me.
        I would like to thank--both Senator McCain and myself
    enlisted a number of people in Arizona to make suggestions and
    to vet the nominations and to go through this process, and they
    did a lot of the hard work, and also our staffs as well. This
    is, like I said, a big chore. These are lifetime appointments.
    It is an important step, and we want to be thorough in this
    process, and I believe that we were.
        As I mentioned, it has been great to go through your bios
    and I can tell you, with this group sitting in front of us, it
    is a diversity of education and experience that will serve the
    court well and the State well.
        I have to say, I was in Tucson and gave a speech before the
    Federal Bar Association there, and Judge Collins was there, the
    Acting Chief Justice, and he did bring up an objection that has
    been raised to Judge Soto, but it is only from the people in
    Santa Cruz County who are very upset----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Flake [continuing]. That you will be leaving them.
    You have done such fine work there. But looking at your bios,
    like I said, a diversity of experience and background that will
    do well.
        Ms. Humetewa actually is the only one who has a degree from
    both ASU and U of A. That sounds like a politician's resume to
    not anger anybody in Arizona.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Flake. Is that right?
        Ms. Humetewa. No, no. I am a two-time ASU grad.
        Senator Flake. Oh. Who is the--oh, Mr. Tuchi, okay. All
    right.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Flake. There is a politician's resume. I am
    surprised you did not do a seminar at NAU just for balance
    throughout the State. But, no, that is great. I really look
    forward to your answers here and look forward to the process.
    Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley have expedited this
    as quickly as possible while being thorough as well. And so we
    are pleased with this process and look forward to your answers.
        Thank you.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you very much, Senator Flake.
        I would like to echo acknowledging the diversity that is
    represented in our nominees this morning. Senator Flake, not to
    be--and I would like to acknowledge that we have somebody here
    who is married to someone from Hawaii--not that that is going
    to make a difference in my judgment of all of you, and that is
    Mr. Logan, correct?
        Senator Flake. You just sailed through.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Hirono. And for both Senator Flake and myself, this
    is our first year serving on this Committee, and it is
    wonderful to see such a diverse group of nominees and to have
    all from one State, I think this is the first time this year--
    or last year, as we have been serving on this Committee, that
    this has happened, and it is because of the bipartisan focus on
    expediting your nominations.
        So we will start with 5 minutes of questioning, and if
    Senator Flake would like a few more minutes, we can certainly
    do that.
        I will start with Ms. Humetewa. Am I pronouncing your name
    correctly?
        Ms. Humetewa. ``Humetewa,'' yes. Thank you.
        Senator Hirono. I think it is really critical that our
    judiciary be as diverse as possible to represent the diversity
    in our country, and you would be the first American Indian to
    sit on the Federal bench. Is that correct?
        Ms. Humetewa. As I understand it, Chair Hirono, upon
    nomination I did learn that I would be, if confirmed, the first
    female Native American to serve in the judiciary.
        Senator Hirono. I know that you have worked with the Hopi
    tribe. How do you think that your experience with that would
    help you as a Federal district judge?
        Ms. Humetewa. Thank you for the question, Chair Hirono.
    Yes, the work that I have performed for the Hopi Tribal
    Government was twofold:
        First, I served for about 5 years as an appellate court
    judge, and there I only handled civil matters. And in that
    capacity, I was responsible for applying the Hopi Tribal
    Constitution, and by the Constitution and the Hopi law and
    ordinances, you then have to analyze each case based on
    traditional customary law, and if there was no traditional
    customary law, you look to the State or Federal law.
        So oftentimes, because the court was in its infancy, we
    would have to apply the Civil Rules of Procedure. We would also
    have to look to State courts and their decisions. But I think
    in that capacity, learning how to be objective, making sure
    that the litigants before you--and oftentimes we did work with
    pro se litigants, and making sure that they had access to the
    court and that we treated them patiently and respectfully; and
    often we would have to turn around our decisions within a 2-day
    period, and that in and of itself was, I think, a lesson that I
    learned in terms of being expeditious yet diligent in terms of
    applying the law.
        Here, of course, if confirmed, I would be applying the
    United States Constitution, our Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit
    precedents. So I think it has prepared me a great deal.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Ms. Marquez, you have demonstrated a commitment to pro bono
    work throughout your career, and you have been recognized for
    your advocacy in that regard. Can you share some brief thoughts
    about how important pro bono services are, especially in these
    difficult economic times?
        Ms. Marquez. Absolutely. My commitment to pro bono work has
    been unwavering throughout my career. I do feel that I have
    been very fortunate to be in the position where I can assist
    others through legal representation, and oftentimes I have done
    so because of the nature of the case or certainly just because
    the person needed representation.
        It is my belief that equal access to justice is very
    important, and without it our legal system would not be able to
    work. And in order for that to happen, all lawyers have a
    responsibility to provide legal services or to work in whatever
    legal capacity they can to make sure that others do have access
    to our judicial system.
        Senator Hirono. Judge Soto, you co-authored an article I
    mentioned. I thought you had written it, but you said you co-
    authored it. It is entitled, ``Let's Keep Politics Out of the
    Judiciary.'' Can you just give us briefly why you were moved to
    write such an article and what your views are?
        Judge Soto. Sure. Thank you, Senator Hirono. I co-authored
    that article with retired Arizona Chief Justice Ruth McGregor,
    who is a former English teacher, and I will tell you that I did
    the initial draft and sent it to her, and she used her red
    pencil extensively to mark up my initial draft electronically.
        But sometime in the 1970s, the Arizona voters adopted a
    constitutional provision that provided for how judges were to
    be selected in the State of Arizona. That proposition crafted a
    very delicate balance between the very--between the different
    branches of Government, and the result of that was a judiciary
    that I think is recognized across the country, and in some
    cases internationally, where there has been a recognition that
    the system has worked well, that the Arizona judges are of high
    quality, of high integrity. Judge Rayes next to me is an
    example of that. And that system has worked very well for
    almost 40 years.
        A couple of years ago, there was a ballot--a proposition
    that was put on the ballot that would have affected the balance
    that was carefully crafted in the 1970s. I felt strongly about
    it, even though it would not have affected me. I am a judge in
    a small county, and I have to run for election every 4 years.
    So it was not something that personally impacted me, but I
    thought it was a bad idea, quite frankly, and the former Chief
    Justice McGregor agreed with me. So we co-wrote that article
    because we thought that the result of the proposition,
    Proposition 115 that went on the ballot, would affect that
    delicate balance that had served Arizona so well. And I think
    the voters agreed. They rejected that proposition by a 3:1
    margin.
        Senator Hirono. And so in Arizona, you have some of your
    judges are elected and some are----
        Judge Soto. Yes.
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. Through a nominating process.
        Judge Soto. It is a bifurcated system. The Arizona Supreme
    Court and the courts of appeals as well as the larger, more
    populous counties, such as Maricopa County, Pima County, and
    now Pinal County all have a merit selection process that they
    go through, and then the other 12 counties of Arizona, judges
    have to stand for election every 4 years.
        Senator Hirono. As a note, Hawaii probably is one of a
    minority of States where none of our judges run for office.
    They are all nominated through a process.
        Senator Flake, would you like to proceed?
        Senator Flake. Thank you.
        Judge Logan, you served in the military for an extended
    period of time and have much experience there. You have also
    worked on the civilian side, somewhat civilian side, as an
    immigration judge, a judge in immigration cases, and also a
    U.S. magistrate judge in the District of Arizona. How will this
    experience, both in the military and serving on immigration
    cases, help you in this role?
        Judge Logan. Senator, thank you for the question. With
    every job I think you learned a lot of different things, and
    the time I have spent in the United States Marine Corps over 23
    years, you have different jobs in roughly every 2 or 3 years in
    terms of what your responsibilities are. As a military
    practitioner as well as judge in the military, and then a
    Federal prosecutor and a U.S. magistrate judge, there are a lot
    of things that you learn about how the process works best.
        Judicial temperament, if I am confirmed, will be something
    that I believe is very important to continue with, because it
    is a very, very stressful process, and it is very, very
    important to the people that appear in court.
        When you have a situation where a person, whether it is a
    civil case or a criminal case, sometimes it is the most
    important thing that is going on in their lives. I think the
    different jobs that I have had as an immigration judge, a
    military judge, and a defense counsel and prosecutor qualifies
    me for this position, if confirmed, because I have seen a lot
    of the cases that the Federal district court will handle. I am
    at the courthouse right now, and I am a lower level judge as a
    magistrate judge, but we have access to a large percentage of
    what they handle on the district bench.
        So I think the jobs that I have held in the past will be of
    great assistance, Senator.
        Senator Flake. Thank you. The most important question, I
    think, for any judicial nominee is what your judicial
    philosophy is with regard to whether you will demonstrate
    judicial restraint or be seen as an activist judge. We all know
    that, as Montesquieu wrote, ``There is no liberty, if the power
    of judging is not separated from the legislative and executive
    powers.''
        How would you describe your judicial philosophy?
        Judge Logan. Well, I think it is very, very important to be
    fair and impartial. I know that there was a question earlier
    about diversity, and I think the nominees this morning show
    what kind of diverse environment we have in Arizona. But in
    terms of what type of judge, if confirmed, I will be the type
    of judge that listens to both sides of the aisle. It is very
    important that you make reasoned decisions about how you apply
    the rules to the facts of the case.
        The rule of law in the United States is very, very
    important. I have seen what happens in a country, two countries
    in particular, when there is no rule of law that is active. I
    will do everything I possibly can, if confirmed, to make sure
    that I listen to the litigants, that I make sure that I do the
    necessary research, and get my rulings correct the first time.
        Senator Flake. Thank you.
        Mr. Tuchi, in your role at the U.S. Attorney's Office, you
    have worked with both tribal and Federal agencies to improve
    criminal prosecutions in much of Indian country. As you know,
    last year Congress enacted a law that would in limited
    circumstances extend jurisdiction of tribal courts over non-
    Indians.
        To what extent do you believe the whole panoply of rights
    in the Bill of Right would apply to non-Indian defendants who
    are being tried in tribal court? Do you have some experience in
    that? And what are your feelings going forward?
        Mr. Tuchi. Yes, thank you, Senator. I believe you are
    referring to the re-enactment of the Violence Against Women Act
    and the expanded jurisdiction afforded to those tribes who will
    opt in and make certain changes and enhancements to their own
    judicial systems.
        It is yet to be seen how that will all work out because no
    tribe has completed the steps yet, although several are very
    close. But having spent a great deal of time over the last
    couple of years as the tribal liaison in the U.S. Attorney's
    Office, I have gotten to visit with the leadership of most of
    the 22 tribes, federally recognized tribes in Arizona, to
    discuss both this and the Tribal Law and Order Act that went in
    3 years earlier that slightly expanded jurisdiction for those
    tribes who wanted to do that in some areas.
        And to answer your question most directly, Senator, I think
    that the requirements that all tribes who wish to take
    advantage of this jurisdiction will be required to meet in
    terms of greater due process for the defendants, and licensed
    judges, State bar licensed judges and defense attorneys will
    make a large difference in balancing out the experience that a
    criminal defendant would have in a jurisdiction like that. And
    I think that is how it will go.
        Senator Flake. Ms. Humetewa, do you have any thoughts on
    that?
        Ms. Humetewa. I do not have anything particular to add to
    Mr. Tuchi's answer. I think it remains to be seen. I think
    every tribal government is examining whether or not to
    implement provisions of those laws and to, I think, weigh
    whether or not they will impact or change their systems of
    justice. So I think it is--both of those laws are still in
    their infancy, and I think implementation is fairly early.
        Senator Flake. Thank you. In 2003, you helped prepare a
    report for the Native American Advisory Group of the U.S.
    Sentencing Commission. The advisory group was formed in
    response to concerns that Native American defendants were
    treated more harshly in the Federal sentencing system than if
    they were prosecuted under respective State laws. The report
    highlighted a number of different areas where the advisory
    group found the problem to exist.
        Do you believe the problems highlighted in the report still
    exist? And what can be done to remedy them?
        Ms. Humetewa. Thank you for the question, and, yes, I was a
    part of the ad hoc working group. I think there were 13 members
    who worked on that report and culled through research.
        To answer the question, I have been not active in
    prosecution or applying the guidelines since about 2007 when I
    took the U.S. Attorney position. And at that time there have
    been, as you know, changes and modifications to the Sentencing
    Guidelines. But I do know that in the research that we looked
    at, we did find areas where there were disparities, and I think
    primarily in the assault statutes that apply to Indians in
    Indian country, that there were--we found at least in comparing
    the data that was before us, the penalties were harsher to
    Indians who committed various assaults in Indian country than
    non-Indians who might be tried and convicted in State courts.
        So I think one of the values of that report is it provided
    guidance to the Sentencing Commission to seek tribal
    consultation when modifications to the Sentencing Guidelines
    are being considered.
        Senator Flake. Well, thank you. I grew up in northern
    Arizona, in Snowflake, next to the Navajo Indian reservation,
    close to the Hopi Indian reservation as well, and I just have
    to say for your parents watching at home this webcast, they
    must be extremely proud, as the whole State is and the country,
    for, you know, the trailblazing way that you are going through
    this, to be the first Native American woman to serve on the
    Federal bench. It is a great thing, so if nominated--or, I am
    sorry, if confirmed, I should always qualify. But thank you for
    being here.
        Ms. Humetewa. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Flake. Ms. Marquez, there has been much discussion
    about liberty and fundamental rights. It is an ongoing debate
    we have had in this country for a long time. Can you describe
    the framework the Supreme Court uses to analyze whether a
    particular liberty is a fundamental right? For example, what
    powers do you believe the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution
    guarantees to the State? What is the difference between
    fundamental rights and liberty?
        Ms. Marquez. Thank you for the question. I do believe that
    the Supreme Court has analyzed what would constitute a
    fundamental right and under what situation, what type of
    scrutiny would be used in analyzing what constitutes a
    fundamental right. And certainly, if confirmed, I would follow
    the Supreme Court precedent and the Ninth Circuit precedent in
    applying the law to certain facts of each case and in
    determining what would constitute a fundamental right.
        Certainly, as we know, if a law infringes upon a right that
    affects liberty, then certainly that would require higher
    scrutiny. And I would be very mindful and review all Supreme
    Court precedent and apply that when making that decision. Thank
    you.
        Senator Flake. The Commerce Clause, do you believe the
    Commerce Clause applies to non-economic activity?
        Ms. Marquez. Well, the Supreme Court has limited the powers
    of the Commerce Clause and where it applies and when it does
    not. So, if confirmed, then I would follow that precedent as
    well. And the Supreme Court has determined that there are
    limitations, and certainly I would follow that precedent.
        Senator Flake. Thank you.
        Judge Rayes, you authored an article entitled, ``Packing
    Heat in Arizona,'' discussing Arizona's concealed-carry law and
    advising citizens of the parameters of Arizona's self-defense
    law. Do you believe that the right to self-defense is a
    fundamental right?
        Judge Rayes. Senator Flake, thank you very much. I believe
    that the Supreme Court has decided that the Second Amendment
    provides individuals the absolute right to bear arms. It is a
    fundamental right, and I think consistent with that, at least
    consistent with that and Arizona law, the right to self-defense
    is a justification in certain circumstances.
        My concern when I wrote the article is I would seeing
    people come to court for offenses involving weapons when they
    did not realize they had committed an offense or did not
    realize the severity of their offense, and I wanted to educate
    the public that when Arizona law became such that there was no
    longer a crime to carry concealed weapons, that citizens who
    carry concealed weapons would go out and educate themselves on
    the law.
        Senator Flake. Well, thank you.
        Judge Soto, you have represented in private practice local
    businesses and agricultural entities that do business across
    the border. You have a lot of experience there. As a judge, you
    have obviously dealt with issues concerning the border.
        From your experience, what are the difficulties in allowing
    the freest commerce that we can allow and have between Arizona
    and Mexico? Mexico is our country's third largest trading
    partner, second largest recipient of our exports, so there is a
    lot of business that is done. A lot of people away from the
    border do not recognize that. They see the border as something
    that could be sealed and that is it, over, done. But we see it
    in Arizona as a place of much commerce.
        What difficulties does that present? And how does that
    experience working on those issues benefit you in this new
    role?
        Judge Soto. Well, as you touched on, Senator, I was born
    and raised on the border. I like to think I am quite familiar
    with a lot of the issues that affect the border, and the longer
    I see these issues, the more I realize how complex these issues
    are. There are no simple solutions. There are a lot of facets
    to the issues along the border, and there are no simple
    solutions.
        I think the individuals and the Government through their
    policies need to encourage cross-border commerce. I think it
    benefits both countries. I think some of the side benefits of
    increased commerce between the two countries is to hopefully
    reduce some of the drug issues and immigration issues that are
    really seriously affecting our Nation and certainly affecting
    the border.
        On the other hand, as a judge it is my responsibility to
    follow the law as it is written, to follow the precedents from
    the Supreme Court and from the Ninth Circuit. So even though I
    may have a lot of experience with border issues, I am still
    going to strictly follow the law as it is written in applying
    that law to the facts of a particular case that would come
    before me.
        Senator Flake. Well, thank you, and I appreciate the
    indulgence of my colleague here in letting me go double beyond
    the time. But this is an important hearing, and, again, I am so
    grateful that you are all here. And I can tell you, in talking
    to those serving on the bench in Arizona now, they are happy to
    see the caseload probably cut in half now as we go. It has been
    better this year, obviously, than last, but, boy, you are sure
    going to help there, and it is going to be a great benefit to
    the State of Arizona. And we will probably have some written
    questions to followup. I know others on the Committee will as
    well. But thank you for your forthright answers here today, and
    thank you for making the trip.
        Thank you.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you very much, Senator Flake. I must
    say that I enjoyed very much your very precise questions about
    fundamental rights and constitutional rights and all that. We
    are both lawyers, but, you know, it is always really--oh, you
    are not? He sounds like one, doesn't he?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Hirono. Okay. But it was illuminating to hear some
    of your views on the questions that Senator Flake asked.
        Just to end this hearing, I would just like to ask each of
    you briefly to respond. What do you consider the most important
    trait of someone who will be serving lifetime on our bench? We
    will start with you, Mr. Logan.
        Judge Logan. Senator, as a sitting judge, if confirmed, I
    think it is very, very important that I continue to listen to
    the litigants when they come in. Sometimes it is very emotional
    in court. Sometimes as a judge it can be very, very difficult
    because someone will leave the courtroom disappointed over how
    you ruled in the case, and it is very important to listen, make
    sure that you are always fair and impartial, and apply the law
    to the facts, and that way the general public will understand
    that it is very transparent and that the courts can be trusted.
        Mr. Tuchi. Senator, I would adopt Judge Logan's answer, but
    also say that the most--it is encompassed in treating every
    matter that is before you at that moment as the most important
    matter that you have to be concerned with, and all of what
    Judge Logan said flows from that.
        Ms. Humetewa. I would also align my views with the two
    previous responses. I would say that in particular in this
    district, because of the high volume, it is important to not
    only show patience and respect of the parties and to listen to
    them diligently and carefully and make sure that you understand
    their issues completely, but I think it is incumbent upon
    judges to rule and to decide expeditiously yet carefully so
    that there can be finality of process for the litigants to be
    able to manage the large volume of cases that will come before
    us, if confirmed.
        Ms. Marquez. I would just add that, if confirmed, I would
    strive to make sure that every litigant would walk away feeling
    that they were heard and understood. Many times even as a
    litigant myself, even if you do not agree with the court's
    decision, you are able to accept it and move on and reason a
    lot better if you feel that the court has listened to you and
    has been impartial when making its decision. And I would strive
    to follow that and make sure that I am a good listener, an
    active listener, and that the parties walk away feeling that
    they were respected in the courtroom and that their views were
    respected and that they were heard.
        Judge Rayes. Thank you. I think you asked for one character
    trait, and if I were to summarize it, I would say respect--
    respect for the other branches of Government, respect for the
    litigants, respect for the lawyers, and respect for precedent.
    And I adopt what my other colleagues have said on the other
    issues.
        Judge Soto. Yes, I would agree with my fellow nominees. I
    think their comments are--I agree with them. I think it is
    important, though, for litigants, when they come to court, that
    they know that you have done your homework and that you are
    prepared, so when they come into court, you know about the
    facts of the case, you know the law that applies to the case.
    So whether it is in a criminal sentencing, you have an
    individual before you that you are sentencing, or perhaps
    whether it is a complex civil matter, I think it is important
    for the litigants to know that this particular judge has
    studied the case, knows the facts of the case, and is deciding
    the case in accordance with the law, and that it is important
    for us to be able to explain our decisions so that they--so
    when they leave there, although they may not be happy with the
    decision, they understand how we arrived at that decision.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you. I want to again thank all of you
    for being here, and welcome once again to all of your friends
    and family who are here and those who are watching.
        The record will remain open for 1 week for submission of
    written questions for the witnesses or other materials. And
    with that, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      NOMINATIONS OF HON. ROBIN ROSENBAUM, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR
                        THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT; HON. BRUCE
       HENDRICKS, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH
        CAROLINA; MARK MASTROIANNI, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE
    DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS; AND LESLIE CALDWELL, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
                       ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT
                                   OF JUSTICE

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2014

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:01 a.m., in
    Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard
    Blumenthal, presiding.
        Present: Senators Blumenthal, Grassley, and Graham.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
              A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

        Senator Blumenthal. I am going to open the hearing,
    although we are missing some of our introducers. I want to
    welcome the nominees and their families to this very, very
    important occasion for you and for justice in our country. We
    are very proud and honored that you are here today and
    delighted that we will hear your testimony.
        This occasion is a very serious and important step in the
    nomination process, and not all of our Members of the Judiciary
    Committee will be here this morning, as you know, but we will
    be reviewing the record, all of our Members will be reviewing
    the record, and I am going to ask Senator Graham of South
    Carolina to begin the introductions this morning. Senator
    Graham.

     PRESENTATION OF HON. BRUCE HENDRICKS, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT
       JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, BY HON. LINDSEY
        GRAHAM, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

        Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think you are all in good hands today with Senator
    Blumenthal. It will be fairly painless, I hope.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my honor to introduce to the
    Committee our United States magistrate since 2002, Bruce
    Hendricks, and she is chosen wisely by the President to become
    a district court judge. She was ABA unanimously well qualified.
    She presided over the first pre-conviction drug program in the
    District of South Carolina, one of the first in the Nation.
        Before becoming a magistrate, she worked as an Assistant
    U.S. Attorney in South Carolina for 11 years, very qualified to
    do the job she is being nominated for. A graduate of the
    College of Charleston and the University of South Carolina
    School of Law, married to her husband, Teddy, and one son and
    one daughter. And I can tell the Committee without any
    reservation she is highly respected by the bar and very much
    supported by Republicans and Democrats in South Carolina and
    will make an outstanding district court judge for our State.
        I want to thank the Obama administration for making this
    nomination, and I look forward to supporting you in the
    Committee and on the floor.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator Graham.
        Senator Graham has completed his introduction, and we are
    going to hear now from the Ranking Member, Senator Grassley.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY,
                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

        Senator Grassley. Well, of course, we ought to congratulate
    the nominees and their families. They can be proud of this
    important milestone in their respective careers. We welcome all
    of you.
        Before we turn to the nominees appearing before us today, I
    would like to say a word or two about the nominees pending on
    the Senate floor. Of course, over the last several weeks, I
    have heard some of my colleagues expressing frustration because
    the nominees on the floor have not yet been confirmed. I am
    somewhat surprised by that. As everyone knows, last year the
    majority of the Senate invoked what is called ``the nuclear
    option.'' By voting to invoke the nuclear option, the majority
    stripped the minority of any ability to stop any nominee from
    being confirmed on the floor.
        The bottom line is that the majority voted to cut the
    minority out of the process. As a result, under the precedent
    of that 52-vote majority, it established that the Majority
    Leader can bring up these nominations for a vote on the floor
    anytime he decides to do so. The minority simply has no ability
    to stop anyone from getting a vote. There is, in other words,
    no filibuster of a nominee anymore. And as anyone who watches
    the Senate proceedings can tell you, the Senate floor is not
    exactly working overtime. We certainly are not considering a
    lot of amendments to legislation. Instead, in most days very
    little is considered on the Senate floor, and we are rarely in
    session on Fridays. So there is really no reason why the leader
    of the Senate cannot bring these nominations up for a vote
    anytime that he decides to do it.
        Finally, I would like to compare our progress so far this
    year compared to where we were at this point during the sixth
    year of the previous President, in other words, meaning
    President Bush's sixth year. So in regard to the sixth year of
    President Obama, during the 113th Congress we had hearings for
    66 judicial nominees. After today, during this year alone we
    have had hearings on 15 nominees. By comparison, in 2006 the
    Senate confirmed only 32 judicial nominees during the entire
    year. So as of today, we have already held hearings for almost
    half that number.
        So I will conclude by saying that I applaud the Chairman
    for his work. He continues to keep us busy as he makes sure
    that the Committee moves at a brisk pace. That applies to you
    as well as to Chairman Leahy.
        Once again, thank you all for your willingness to serve the
    public.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Grassley.
        I am going to ask Senator Warren to introduce the nominee
    from Massachusetts.

            PRESENTATION OF MARK MASTROIANNI, NOMINEE TO BE
       DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, BY HON.
          ELIZABETH WARREN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
                             MASSACHUSETTS

        Senator Warren. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member Grassley, for holding
    this hearing and for allowing me to be here today. I apologize
    that I will have to leave right after this. We have got another
    hearing as well over in HELP.
        But I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to
    introduce Mark Mastroianni, who has been nominated to fill a
    judicial vacancy in western Massachusetts for the District
    Court of the District of Massachusetts. Mark came highly
    recommended by the Advisory Committee on Massachusetts Judicial
    Nominations. The advisory committee is comprised of
    distinguished members of the Massachusetts legal community,
    including prominent academics and litigators, and it is chaired
    by former district court judge Nancy Gertner. Their
    recommendation reflects the strong sense of Massachusetts'
    legal community and, in particular, the legal community in
    western Massachusetts that he will make an excellent district
    court judge.
        Mark Mastroianni is a true son of western Massachusetts. He
    was born in Springfield, and he is a lifelong resident of
    Hampden County. He is currently serving as the elected district
    attorney for Hampden County, a position he has held since 2011.
    He graduated with honors from the American International
    College in Springfield, Massachusetts, and he went on to earn
    his law degree from Western New England College School of Law,
    also in Springfield, Massachusetts. And today he is here with
    his wife, Carolyn, and his daughters, Christine, Jennifer, and
    Lauren. I know they must all be immensely proud to attend this
    hearing and to provide their love and support on this
    extraordinary day.
        DA Mastroianni began his career in the Hampden County
    District Attorney's Office. He served there as an assistant
    district attorney for over 5 years, gaining prosecutorial
    experience in a wide variety of district and superior court
    matters. He then moved into private practice where he built a
    significant career as a defense attorney representing clients
    in civil and criminal matters.
        Over the course of 16 years, he has represented clients in
    matters before the Massachusetts State trial courts and appeals
    courts as well as the district court to which he has been
    nominated. He frequently took on court-appointed defense cases
    in Massachusetts, reflecting his commitment to the integrity of
    our legal system and to the idea that everyone deserves
    representation.
        In November 2010, Mark ran as an independent and was
    successfully elected to serve as the district attorney for
    Hampden County in the western part of Massachusetts, a position
    that returned him to lead the office where he began his career.
    As district attorney, he is responsible for managing the
    prosecution of all cases in the 23 cities and towns that make
    up Hampden County.
        Aside from the impressive qualifications of this candidate,
    the fact of Mark's nomination is particularly important because
    the seat he has been nominated to fill has been vacant for too
    long. Since U.S. District Court Judge Ponsor took senior status
    in 2011, the vacancy has strained the Federal judicial system
    in western Massachusetts, causing cases to be postponed,
    forcing judges from Boston to travel to Springfield to hold
    hearings, and impeding the ability of citizens to get their day
    in court.
        Filling this vacancy as quickly as possible has been a top
    priority for me since I arrived in the Senate last year, and DA
    Mastroianni's swift approval and confirmation is essential for
    ensuring the administration of justice for the people of
    Massachusetts.
        I am proud to have recommended Mark Mastroianni to
    President Obama. He is an independent-minded district attorney
    whose diverse litigation experiences both as a top prosecutor
    and as a top defense attorney will enrich the Federal bench in
    Massachusetts. I look forward to his approval by this Committee
    and his swift confirmation by the full Senate.
        Thank you.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator Warren.
        Let me just briefly say at the outset of this hearing that
    I consider this hearing and others like it one of the most
    important things we do in the U.S. Senate. We confirm judges
    for life, and they become the voice and face of justice in this
    country. Particularly at the district court level but also at
    the court of Appeals, they are often the last stop for people.
    A lot of folks in America think of justice as the U.S. Supreme
    Court, but our district court judges and our circuit court
    judges are really the place in this Nation where Federal
    justice is dispensed. And I have been a lawyer for some time,
    practiced frequently in the Federal courts, so I know how
    important the quality of judging is not only to the lawyers but
    most especially to the men and women whose lives are
    dramatically and enduringly affected by what happens to them in
    those courts. Whether it is criminal or civil, their lives are
    changed, often forever, as a result.
        So I want to thank the families of the judges who hopefully
    will be confirmed for their service as well because I know the
    kind of sacrifices that you will be making when your loved ones
    spend long hours, whether it is in the courtroom or doing their
    opinion writing and reading at home or in the office. And I
    know that that sacrifice will consist of birthdays missed and
    family occasions, but it is for one of the best causes in the
    United States--the cause of justice and democracy. We are
    unique as a Nation among all the countries in the world in
    placing that kind of responsibility on our judges, and so we
    thank you, thank the nominees, and thank their families.
        And one last point before I introduce Senator Scott for his
    introduction. This process really is and should be a bipartisan
    one. The process of appointing and confirming judges is one
    that should be done without considerations of politics or
    party. What we are doing here is something for the Nation. And
    I know that you will hear questions here and perhaps debate on
    the floor that sometimes reflects differences and contention.
    But at the end of the day, I think we come together as a Senate
    to confirm the best possible people for these judgeships
    because it is so critical to the Nation and the national
    interest that we do so.
        Senator Scott.

     PRESENTATION OF HON. BRUCE HENDRICKS, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT
    JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, BY HON. TIM SCOTT, A
             U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

        Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my privilege
    to say some words on behalf of Judge Bruce Hendricks, a
    fantastic person, a level-headed person, who is a great judge
    already in her own right. I am looking forward to seeing her
    serve on the Federal level. Bruce is, in fact, an amazing
    person who happens to be a proud Charlestonian. Being from
    Charleston, it gives me great honor to nominate her to be a
    U.S. District Judge for the district of South Carolina.
        I had the opportunity to sit down with Bruce recently and
    talk with her about the things that are important to her and
    get to know her a little better. She is as bright as the
    dickens. There is no doubt she has an amazing resume. I know
    Senator Graham has spoken about her resume and her scores as an
    Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
    District of South Carolina, an instructor at the College of
    Charleston, and a judge.
        She is caring. Her pro bono work is the definition of
    community service. She has participated in many programs that
    have benefited the underprivileged, including unveiling an
    after-school program to provide food and tutoring for the Boys
    and Girls Club in Charleston. She has helped startup a marching
    band for a local high school and routinely hosts kids at the
    courtroom to introduce them to the judicial process and to the
    judicial system under positive circumstances and in a very
    positive way.
        But the most important thing I have learned about you,
    Bruce, is that you are a College of Charleston basketball fan.
    Go, Cougars.
        I believe the integrity of a judge is, in fact, the
    cornerstone of our judicial system. Her trial experience, her
    knowledge of the courtroom and the law, and her devotion to
    improving our communities leads me to believe she will be fair
    and devoted to justice.
        I am proud to recommend Bruce to the Committee.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator Scott.
        We are going to--and, by the way, both Senator Warren and
    Senator Scott probably have to leave for other engagements, as
    did Senator Graham. We have multiple hearings going on at the
    same time. So anytime you want to leave, Senator Scott, please
    feel free to do so, and we certainly do appreciate your being
    here.
        Senator Scott. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Blumenthal. I am going to introduce first on the
    first panel--and we may be interrupted by Senator Rubio or
    Senator Nelson if they arrive and wish to make statements--
    Judge Robin Rosenbaum, who is President Obama's nominee to
    serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
    Circuit. Judge Rosenbaum is currently serving as a United
    States District Court Judge for the Southern District of
    Florida, a position she was confirmed for in 2002 by a 92-3
    vote in the Senate. She previously served as a magistrate judge
    in the same district from 2007 to 2012 and a Federal prosecutor
    from 1998 to 2007, including 5 years as chief of the economic
    crimes section.
        Judge Rosenbaum began her legal career as a trial attorney
    in the Civil Division of the United States Department of
    Justice for 4 years before serving as staff counsel in the
    Office of the Independent Counsel for the investigation of
    former United States Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown.
        Judge Rosenbaum spent 2 years as an associate at Holland
    and Knight and clerked for Judge Stanley Marcus of the Eleventh
    Circuit Court of Appeals in 1998. She was born in Chapel Hill,
    North Carolina. She received her B.A. from Cornell University
    in 1988 and graduated magna cum laude from the University of
    Miami School of Law in 1991.
        Judge Rosenbaum, would you please come forward?
        Judge Rosenbaum. Good morning.
        Senator Blumenthal. Good morning. We would first of all ask
    you to please stand and be sworn. Do you affirm that the
    testimony you are about to give before this Committee is the
    truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
    God?
        Judge Rosenbaum. I do.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. If you wish to make an
    opening statement, we would be happy to hear it.

               STATEMENT OF HON. ROBIN ROSENBAUM, NOMINEE
              TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

        Judge Rosenbaum. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. I would
    like to thank the Committee for convening this hearing and
    Senator Blumenthal for presiding, Ranking Member Grassley for
    attending as well, and I would like to thank Senators Nelson
    and Rubio. I understand they may be here later this morning,
    and I very much appreciate that. And I would like to thank the
    President, President Obama, for nominating me for this
    position.
        I would also like to, if it is all right with the
    Committee, briefly introduce my family.
        Senator Blumenthal. Sure, absolutely.
        Judge Rosenbaum. Thank you. My husband, Phil Rothschild; my
    daughters Evin and Rosie Rothschild; my mother, Hedy Rosenbaum;
    my father, Jerry Rosenbaum; my sister, Jodi Fiedler, and
    brother-in-law, Larry Fiedler, and their three sons, my nephew,
    Ben, Ryan, and Zachary Fiedler; my sister, Marci Rosenthal, and
    her son, Jake Rosenthal; and I am very fortunate to have some
    good friends here as well.
        So I just wanted to thank everybody for being here.
        [The biographical information of Judge Rosenbaum appears as
    a submission for the record.]
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, and I know they are very
    proud of you.
        Judge Rosenbaum. Thank you.
        Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you at the beginning, what
    do you view as the greatest challenge you will have going from
    the district court to the circuit court?
        Judge Rosenbaum. Well, in the Eleventh Circuit, the
    Eleventh Circuit actually currently has the highest caseload
    per judge, so I think that the workload is challenging. But I
    feel fortunate that I have had an opportunity to get used to a
    heavy workload in the Southern District of Florida, where we
    routinely seem to have up at the top in the number of hours
    that we spend on the bench and also a huge caseload that we
    carry there. So I am hopeful and I expect that that should help
    to prepare me for a heavy caseload on the Eleventh Circuit if I
    am fortunate enough to be confirmed.
        Senator Blumenthal. You have had a lot of different
    experiences both in litigating and as a judicial officer. Is
    there an area of law or specialty that you think will be most
    attractive and interesting to you?
        Judge Rosenbaum. I really enjoy all of it. When there is an
    area that I have not had the opportunity to work in previously,
    I love the challenge of learning about a new area. I really
    enjoy digging more deeply into areas that I have had the
    opportunity to work on before. So I am really hopeful that I
    will have the opportunity to work on everything.
        Senator Blumenthal. Is there an area of law that you would
    prefer not to deal with?
        Judge Rosenbaum. Not really.
        Senator Blumenthal. And that is a good answer.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Blumenthal. Especially to your fellow future
    prospective judges, I am sure.
        Is there something that you think ought to be done to
    either ease or alter the caseload in districts like the one
    where you are currently a trial judge to perhaps alleviate that
    caseload that you mentioned earlier?
        Judge Rosenbaum. I think that a lot of that will probably
    be addressed through time. I know recently there have been some
    vacancies, so we are looking at 4 down on a 12-judge court. So
    hopefully that will address itself eventually.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. That is all the questions I
    have. Before turning to the Ranking Member, if he would agree,
    I would like to introduce Senator Rubio for his introductory
    statement.

             PRESENTATION OF HON. ROBIN ROSENBAUM, NOMINEE
      TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, BY HON. MARCO
                  RUBIO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
                               OF FLORIDA

        Senator Rubio. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    apologize for being a few minutes late, and I know Senator
    Nelson will also try to get here today. But I would like to
    thank the Chairman, Chairman Leahy, the Ranking Member, Senator
    Grassley, and Members of this Committee for holding this
    hearing and for the invitation to introduce my fellow
    Floridian, Judge Robin Rosenbaum.
        She currently serves as the district judge in my home
    district, the Southern District of Florida. She has been
    honored by the President with the nomination to continue her
    service as a judge on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
        I am certain every Member of this Committee will agree that
    the Senate has few responsibilities more important than
    providing advice and consent on the President's judicial
    nominations. These are lifetime appointments, with great power,
    whose decisions directly impact the life, liberty, and the
    property of the parties who come before them.
        The decisions of a circuit court judge can be particularly
    consequential. They impact people of several States, not just
    one district. And because the Supreme Court hears so few cases,
    circuit court rulings are often the final word on important
    matters.
        For that reason, I take my duty to review nominations very
    seriously, as I know you do. The people of Florida and the
    people of the United States deserve the finest men and women we
    can find to occupy these judgeships. They deserve men and women
    of great character and unquestioned ability, people who
    understand the important but properly limited role of a judge,
    and a judge's job is simply to say what the law is without
    bias, without agenda. As passionately as a judge may feel about
    a particular issue, when she puts on that black robe, she must
    set aside her personal views.
        The Judiciary Committee plays a critical role of diligently
    evaluating each nominee, and I know this Committee will
    thoroughly examine the record and the career of Judge Rosenbaum
    and ask her some questions today and perhaps in the followup. I
    trust and I know that she is up to the task. Judge Rosenbaum
    certainly comes before you prepared with an impressive
    background of public service. She graduated from my alma mater,
    the University of Miami Law School, in 1991, earning her degree
    magna cum laude--much better than me.
        From there, she began an impressively good career focused
    on Government service. She served in the Federal Programs
    Branch of the Justice Department's Civil Division from 1991 to
    1995 and in the Office of Independent Counsel in 1995 and 1996.
        She returned to Florida in 1996 for a stint in private
    practice with the prestigious law firm of Holland and Knight.
    In 1998, she returned to public service when she served a
    clerkship with Judge Stanley Marcus, a legend in South Florida,
    on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. From 1998 to 2007,
    Judge Rosenbaum was a Federal prosecutor in the United States
    Attorney's Office for the Southern District, including several
    years as the chief of the economic crimes section.
        In 2007, she became a Federal magistrate judge in the
    Southern District. In 2012, she was nominated by President
    Obama and was overwhelmingly confirmed by the Senate as a U.S.
    district court judge.
        Through it all, she has remained active in the community
    and has many supporters in South Florida who I continue to hear
    from until moments ago and, of course, throughout the State.
    And I wish her and her family all the best throughout this
    process, and I am certain the Committee will give her
    nomination a full and fair consideration, and I thank you for
    this opportunity and the opportunity to speak to you today.
        Thank you.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator Rubio, and thank you
    for being here. As I mentioned earlier, many of our Senators
    have other meetings and hearings, and you are excused if you
    have another.
        Senator Grassley.
        Senator Grassley. Thank you.
        Like the Chairman said, you have been a district court
    judge and have been there for about 2 years. I would like to
    get a better sense of what your approach to hearing appeals
    will be.
        First, on the one hand, what characteristics have you seen
    in appellate court judges that you would hope to avoid, if
    confirmed? And, on the other hand, what characteristics would
    you hope to emulate?
        Judge Rosenbaum. Well, the ones that I think that an
    appellate judge should have would be patience, treating those
    who come before the court with dignity, and hard-working. It is
    very important for the judges to be hard-working and to be well
    prepared to understand the cases that come before them, whether
    they dispose of them on the papers or after oral argument, to
    be prepared for the oral argument if it is through oral
    argument; and I think to explain thoroughly the basis for the
    opinions that they issue. And those are the qualities that I
    would strive to emulate.
        Senator Grassley. Which ones have you seen either as a
    lawyer or as a judge that you would hope not to--or that you
    would not do because you considered those something a judge
    should not do?
        Judge Rosenbaum. Well, I would say that I have not really
    seen too much of that. I have been fortunate, because when I
    clerked on the Eleventh Circuit----
        Senator Grassley. Under what circumstances do you believe
    it is appropriate for a Federal court to declare a statute
    enacted by Congress unconstitutional?
        Judge Rosenbaum. In very rare circumstances, and only when
    there is no other way to dispose of the issue other than to
    rule on the constitutionality, and then only when the law
    clearly conflicts with a part of the Constitution.
        Senator Grassley. Under what circumstances, if any, do you
    believe an appellate court should overturn precedent within the
    circuit? And what factors would you consider in reaching a
    decision to overturn such a precedent?
        Judge Rosenbaum. Well, of course, the circuit can overturn
    its own precedent only on an en banc hearing or, of course,
    when the Supreme Court has issued a ruling that is directly
    contrary to a prior ruling of the circuit. And the court should
    sit en banc under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
    Procedure only when we are talking about a matter of great
    importance or when there are conflicting panel opinions. So in
    order to resolve a conflict in the circuit, if there were one,
    that would be reason to overturn circuit precedent. Or if, for
    example, it were a matter of great importance, that would be
    another reason.
        Senator Grassley. I am going to ask a philosophical
    question based upon a statement that Justice Scalia made in a
    speech in 2005, and I do not want you to worry about Justice
    Scalia. I am just asking you about this philosophy.
        ``I think it is up to the judge to say what the
    Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best
    answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that is what
    it says, that is what it says.''
        Would you agree with that philosophy?
        Judge Rosenbaum. I am not familiar with the speech that it
    comes from, but, yes, I would.
        Senator Grassley. Okay. And then, second, and my last, do
    you believe a judge should consider his or her own values or
    policy preferences in determining what the law means? And if
    you thought that a judge should, under what circumstances?
        Judge Rosenbaum. I absolutely believe that a judge should
    not consider his or her own personal policy preferences and
    that they should play no role in interpreting the law.
        Senator Grassley. Thank you.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Judge Rosenbaum, and you are
    excused. Thank you.
        Judge Rosenbaum. Thank you very much.
        Senator Blumenthal. We are going to ask the next three
    nominees, Bruce Hendricks, Mark Mastroianni, and Leslie
    Caldwell, to please come forward.
        Now that you have sat, would you please rise so we can
    swear you in? Do you affirm that the testimony you are about to
    give before the Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and
    nothing but the truth, so help you God?
        Judge Hendricks. I do.
        Mr. Mastroianni. I do.
        Ms. Caldwell. I do.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Ms. Caldwell, I am going to introduce you because no one
    has. You have heard abundant and very full introductions of the
    other two nominees, so let me just say we are very honored to
    have you here today. You have a lot of great experience in
    courts, and you have been nominated to be Assistant Attorney
    General of the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice.
    I understand you are currently a partner in the New York office
    of Morgan, Lewis and Bockius and focus on white-collar crime
    and regulatory matters.
        Previously, Ms. Caldwell served as special assistant to the
    Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division at the
    Department of Justice where she led the Department of Justice
    Enron Task Force from 2002 to 2004. Prior to that she served as
    an Assistant United States Attorney for 11 years in the Eastern
    District of New York and for 5 years in the Northern District
    of California. She began her legal career at two private law
    firms: Spengler, Carlson, Gubar and Brodsky, and then at
    Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft. I understand you were born in
    Steubenville, Ohio, and earned your degree, your B.A. summa cum
    laude at Pennsylvania State University in 1979 and your J.D.
    cum laude from George Washington University School of Law in
    1982. Welcome.
        And let me ask each of the nominees, give you an
    opportunity to make a brief opening statement, if you wish,
    introducing your family, as Judge Rosenbaum did.

    STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE HENDRICKS, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE
                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

        Judge Hendricks. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. I would
    like to start by thanking Senators Graham and Scott for their
    very gracious remarks. Their roles in this process are
    difficult ones, and I am grateful for their confidence in me.
        I would like to thank President Obama, most of all, and his
    administration for this nomination to the district court. It is
    a singular personal honor and experience for me.
        To Senator Blumenthal, Chairman Leahy, and Ranking Member
    Grassley, my sincere thanks and appreciation for the invitation
    to appear here today.
        I have family and many friends cheering me on. Today here
    with me is my husband, Teddy; my son; my daughter and her
    husband. I am particularly thrilled that my nieces Torrey
    Crawford and Sydney Howe are here.
        Back home I have an anxious mother, siblings, and cousins
    watching along with other friends and colleagues in Charleston
    and in South Carolina. I am only here because of them.
        My father has been deceased for some time now. He would be
    greatly pleased.
        I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
        [The biographical information of Judge Hendricks appears as
    a submission for the record.]
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Mr. Mastroianni.

    STATEMENT OF MARK MASTROIANNI, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
                     THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

        Mr. Mastroianni. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Blumenthal, I would like to thank you and thank
    you, Senator Grassley, for your consideration and involvement
    in this process; also Senator Leahy for his participation in
    this Committee.
        I would like to thank President Obama for the nomination
    and having the faith in me and my background that I could be
    considered to serve in this position.
        And I would very much like to thank Senator Warren who
    established the committee to look for an appropriate candidate
    to fill this judgeship in our State. I thank her for the
    selection process and, again, for her faith in me and my coming
    out of that process.
        I would like to thank Senator Markey as well for his
    support of my nomination as well.
        Present with me today, I am very fortunate to have the most
    important people in my life here with me. My wife, Carolyn, is
    here. My daughter Christine, my daughter Jennifer, and my
    daughter Lauren are all here with me.
        Also, very special to me, very close family members: my
    sister-in-law, Joan, is present with my niece and nephews. My
    nephews Steve, Mike, and John, and my niece Meghan, are also
    here. I thank them very much for being here.
        Senators Blumenthal and Grassley, I would also like to note
    that here supporting me today, it is quite an honor that
    several of the other elected district attorneys from the State
    of Massachusetts are here to support me in this. I did not see
    all who came in, but I know District Attorneys Blodgett,
    Sullivan, Connelly, Cruz, and Morrisey are here in the room. So
    out of the 11 elected district attorneys in the State of
    Massachusetts, we are well represented in this room today, and
    I appreciate their support.
        [The biographical information of Mr. Mastroianni appears as
    a submission for the record.]
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Caldwell.

    STATEMENT OF LESLIE CALDWELL, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
                  GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

        Ms. Caldwell. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grassley, thank
    you. I am very honored to appear before you today as President
    Obama's nominee to be the Assistant Attorney General for the
    Criminal Division of the Justice Department.
        Here with me are my partner, Michele Kohler, and her
    daughter, Hannah Ryan, who are sitting behind me. Also here is
    my niece, Megan Caldwell, who is sitting in the second row; my
    fantastic administrative assistant, Donna Weekes; and several
    other friends and colleagues. I thank them all for their
    support and for being here today.
        I know that if they had made it to this day, my parents,
    Key and Caryl Caldwell, would have been so proud of seeing
    their daughter sit before this Committee. My father, Key, was a
    native of Lookout Mountain, Tennessee, who at the age of 19
    joined the Army Air Corps in World War II. He became a B-24
    bomber pilot, assigned to the 8th Air Force, based in England.
    After many successful missions over Germany, his plane was shot
    down. He managed to keep the plane airborne until he could
    leave German airspace and land in a field in Switzerland. All
    but one of his crew survived. He was detained by the Swiss but
    escaped, and with the help of the French Resistance, made his
    way to safety. My father went on to become a successful
    businessman in Pittsburgh, but he was also a very humble man.
    In fact, I never even knew the story that I just shared with
    you until I was well into adulthood and stumbled upon my
    father's war diary. When I asked him with amazement about his
    exploits, he said very matter of factly that all he had done
    was serve his country as best he could. And he never spoke of
    it again.
        My mother, Caryl, was a remarkable woman who set an example
    for me every day of her life. She grew up in a single-parent
    home on the north side of Pittsburgh, which at the time was a
    very poor neighborhood. Though she was the valedictorian of her
    high school class, there was no money for college. So she got a
    job as a secretary in the Legal Department at U.S. Steel and
    worked her way through the University of Pittsburgh at night.
    Around the time she was meeting my father and marrying him, she
    graduated from Pitt summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa. Though she
    never worked in a traditional job again, she raised three
    children, was in leadership roles in many community
    organizations, and volunteered countless hours as an adult
    literacy teacher. I like to think that if my mom had been 30
    years later, she would have been the one sitting before this
    Committee today.
        Our parents taught my brothers that the values that matter
    most in life are fairness, integrity, hard work, and humility.
    As I sit before this Committee, I am especially mindful of
    those values, and of the honor of public service, to which I
    have dedicated much of my career.
        If I am fortunate enough to become head of the Criminal
    Division, I will do my best to ensure the vigorous enforcement
    of the criminal laws and to apply them with equal force whether
    the wrongdoing occurs in a boardroom, across a computer
    network, or on a street corner.
        I thank you again for considering my nomination, and I am
    pleased to answer any questions you may have.
        [The biographical information of Ms. Caldwell appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Ms. Caldwell.
        Let me begin my questions with Judge Hendricks. What do you
    think are the two or three most important experiences that
    prepare you for this job?
        Judge Hendricks. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal, for the
    question. My experience as an Assistant United States Attorney
    for the----
        Senator Blumenthal. I do not know whether your microphone
    is on.
        Judge Hendricks. It looks like it is on. There it is.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Judge Hendricks. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. I think my
    experience as an Assistant United States Attorney for 11 years,
    trying cases before the district court, and handling
    investigations on behalf of the United States was a great
    experience in enabling me to be familiar with the district
    court and trial procedure, in particular the Rules of Evidence.
    Then transitioning into the role of United States magistrate
    judge I believe helps prepare me for the role of United States
    district judge as I am already working in the district court
    and handling cases there, some of which are under certain
    circumstances co-extensive with the Article III judges.
        Senator Blumenthal. That sort of anticipates my next
    question. In your district, do magistrates conduct trials? In
    the District of Connecticut they do, just as Federal judges,
    Article III judges, as you just mentioned.
        Judge Hendricks. Yes, Senator. By consent of the parties
    and approval of the district judge, then a magistrate judge may
    conduct a trial, and I have had three jury trials in my
    career--well, two jury trials and one bench trial.
        Senator Blumenthal. Civil or criminal?
        Judge Hendricks. Civil. We cannot handle full felony jury
    trials, although we can take felony guilty pleas, and I have
    done that. And I handle some of the preliminary felony criminal
    work.
        Senator Blumenthal. In your view, what is the most
    difficult matter you have had to handle as a magistrate judge?
        Judge Hendricks. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
    Actually, every day, every case is important, and I give great
    pause before I issue a ruling or make a decision. I think in
    particular in the criminal law arena, decisions in regards to
    an individual's liberty are always tough decisions, and those
    would be my hardest decisions every day.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Mr. Mastroianni, let me ask you the same question. What do
    you think are the two or three most important experiences that
    would affect your judging?
        Mr. Mastroianni. In my professional career, I have had
    several experiences which I think prepare me for this
    consideration, and it started out being in private practice and
    learning about the business world and how to make it in the
    business world. Being a criminal defense attorney, starting
    from the ground up and working to doing criminal defense at the
    highest level, and doing the same thing as a prosecutor,
    starting as a prosecutor at the lowest level and working my way
    up to be handling the highest cases, and ultimately have the
    good fortune to be elected as district attorney and run an
    office--those experiences have taught me so much about the law,
    about the respect that should be had for each opposing side.
    Although it is an adversarial system, fairness and integrity in
    the system is the common goal. And my experience I think comes
    together, so I fully appreciate the dynamic of our system.
        Senator Blumenthal. As district attorney, what are the most
    difficult decisions you have to make?
        Mr. Mastroianni. The most difficult decisions oftentimes
    deal with selecting charges and selecting what penalties we
    will seek to impose on particular cases. Where there are
    victims involved, it becomes much more complicated when there
    are vulnerable victims involved, children and elderly people
    who cannot necessarily speak for themselves. And that was a
    source of their victimization that becomes especially
    difficult. So putting forward cases where our case is weakened
    by the inherent vulnerability of someone who was victimized is
    a difficult task, and we have taken a lot of pains to put
    procedures in place that will appropriately handle those cases.
        Senator Blumenthal. So victims' advocates or special
    counsels to represent victims are something that you value
    highly?
        Mr. Mastroianni. I do value them highly. We do have a
    special victim witness unit within our office who is in
    constant contact with victims of cases and let them know what
    the system means, because also part of the circle of
    victimization, if you will, is when a victim comes into a
    courthouse that they are not familiar with and they have never
    been involved in a proceeding and they find themselves there on
    a regular basis and it is very intimidating for them. And so
    our office does provide support for them in the role of their
    own special advocates.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Ms. Caldwell, I should have said at the very outset,
    although I spoke mainly of the judges that we have as needs,
    that your position is really one of the most important in the
    whole Federal Government because your recommendations very
    often will be final as to the charges that are brought either
    by a United States Attorney--and I know because I served as one
    quite a few years ago--or by the Department of Justice itself.
    And so you will have in your hands the fates of many
    individuals whose lives will hang in the balance. And obviously
    the interests of society also will be at stake because those
    individuals may have committed very serious and significant
    crimes with ramifications on national security or other kinds
    of very important issues at stake.
        And I was moved by your stories of your parents. Obviously
    they are a source of your dedication to public service. You
    served, I believe, about 17 years as a Government attorney,
    which, in my view, is one of the highest callings of any
    attorney. So I want to thank you for your dedication to public
    service and just ask you whether you go into this job with any
    priorities. You mentioned that they are all important, whether
    it is white-collar crime or organized crime or drug dealing,
    whether you see any priorities for the Criminal Division at
    this point.
        Ms. Caldwell. Thank you, Senator, and I appreciate your
    comments. I certainly do see that things are moving very fast
    in the world of cyber crime, in the world of international
    crime. Things are always moving fast in the world of narcotics
    and organized crime and gangs. And white-collar crime is also
    something that I think is a very important priority.
        So as you said, Senator, I think you are correct, they are
    all priorities, and I believe, if I am fortunate enough to be
    confirmed, my first priority will be to understand what exactly
    is being done currently and try to align that with what the
    Department's priorities perhaps should be.
        Senator Blumenthal. Do you have a view as to what the
    division of responsibility should be between the United States
    Attorneys and the Department of Justice?
        Ms. Caldwell. I think that the United States Attorney--
    having been in both, I think that the United States Attorney's
    Offices are really the front lines of most Federal criminal
    prosecution. I think the Criminal Division has a very
    significant role in supporting those offices, particularly the
    smaller offices that may not have the resources to do certain
    kinds of cases. But the Criminal Division also has its own very
    important litigating role, as you know, Senator. The Fraud
    Section is a very large section that brings very sophisticated
    cases all over the country. The Computer Crime and Intellectual
    Property Section is probably the premier expert on computer
    crime in the country.
        So I think that it is going to be very important to
    continue working together, the Criminal Division and the U.S.
    Attorney's Offices, if I am fortunate enough to be in that
    role.
        Senator Blumenthal. And do you think that there need to be
    enhanced training programs for the attorneys in either the
    Criminal Division or the Department of Justice generally?
        Ms. Caldwell. I am certainly not--I am not familiar with
    what the current training programs are, but I know that it is
    very important to train particularly young prosecutors to
    understand the importance of their role and the power that they
    have, to make sure that that power is used in an appropriate,
    fair, and judicious manner.
        Senator Blumenthal. And one last question. You know, we had
    testimony--in fact, it may have been at our last hearing--on
    the issue of data breaches, the kinds of hacking and theft of
    information that has occurred at stores like Target and Neiman
    Marcus where the stores could be viewed as a victim and are a
    victim of criminal activity, but at the same time need to be
    held accountable for increasing the protections that they have,
    protections for themselves against that kind of invasion, but
    also protections for their customers whose information is
    entrusted to them.
        Do you have views as to what the stores ought to be doing
    or what other enterprises should be doing to protect themselves
    better against this kind of cyber attack?
        Ms. Caldwell. I appreciate that the cyber attack as well as
    intellectual property theft are both extremely important
    issues. I am not familiar with the specifics other than what I
    have read in the media of the data breach issues. But I think
    it is clearly very important. I think one of the areas in which
    criminals are moving very quickly is cyber attack, cyber
    breach, intellectual property theft, and that is something that
    I would look forward to learning a lot more about and being
    very aggressive in connection with that.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Ms. Caldwell.
        Ms. Caldwell. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Blumenthal. Senator Grassley.
        Senator Grassley. Yes, I am going to start with Mr.
    Mastroianni and then Ms. Caldwell and then Judge Hendricks.
        I am going to, first of all, talk about a gun prosecution
    you were involved in. Let me give some background before I ask
    a question.
        In 2013, the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld the State's
    gun storage law. The law mandated that gun owners keep their
    firearms in a locked container or equipped with a mechanical
    lock even inside their own homes. A defendant kept a loaded
    handgun in an unlocked drawer in his bedroom. Following an
    argument, the defendant's roommate took the firearm and threw
    it out the window where it was recovered by police. The
    defendant was charged with violating the storage law.
        The defendant challenged the statute as an unconstitutional
    violation of the Second Amendment. The defendant argued that
    requiring firearms to be locked even within one's home
    effectively invalidated the right recognized by the Supreme
    Court in Heller, and the Massachusetts Supreme Court disagreed.
    You were district attorney at the time. I recognize that that
    was part of your job, to enforce State laws. However, you said
    in an interview that the court made the right decision in the
    case. In my view, the right to self-defense does not mean a
    whole lot if you cannot access your firearm in a real big
    hurry.
        My question then: Would you explain why you believe the
    particular law does not violate the Second Amendment?
        Mr. Mastroianni. Thank you, Senator. The Second Amendment
    is clear. Individuals do have rights to have firearms, and I
    respect that and recognize that as clearly the law of the land.
        States have the authority to impose other regulations that
    affect the safety of their citizens, and the specific statute
    on which you are speaking went to the safety of citizens.
    Around the same time as that case came up, we were dealing with
    several other cases where firearms that were unlocked--one was
    in a private home. I believe both instances were in a private
    home. And access to those firearms was gotten by an individual
    who was drug-addicted and struggling with psychological issues
    in their life at that time, and there was an unlocked firearm,
    and that individual got a hold of that weapon and ended up
    using that weapon to end their life.
        There have been other cases that have come into my office
    where unlocked firearms have fallen into the hands of
    unlicensed people and/or children, and there is rarely a good
    outcome when a youngster or teenager gets a hold of a gun, does
    not really know how to use it, and takes it out of the home.
    And that was the basis for the legislation in Massachusetts
    requiring those gun locks. It was in no shape or form meant to
    infringe upon the ultimate right given by the Supreme Court of
    an individual's constitutional right to have a properly
    licensed gun, but in Massachusetts we did prosecute those
    specific cases under the specific facts as were presented
    because they were violations of the Massachusetts law of the
    safety with how those guns were kept.
        Senator Grassley. I am going to stop and let Senator
    Nelson----
        Senator Blumenthal. I was going to ask you, Senator
    Grassley, whether you would be willing to pause for a moment,
    and I am going to ask Senator Nelson to please make his
    comments and remarks concerning Judge Rosenbaum.

             PRESENTATION OF HON. ROBIN ROSENBAUM, NOMINEE
      TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, BY HON. BILL
                 NELSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
                               OF FLORIDA

        Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, you all are so kind to extend
    the courtesy to your fellow Senators. To you, Mr. Chairman, to
    Chairman Leahy, to Senator Grassley, I am very appreciative and
    want to tell you of the bipartisan support for our nominee,
    Robin Rosenbaum.
        Senator Rubio and I, as we have testified several times, we
    have a committee that we call a ``judicial nominations
    committee,'' and the intent is to find the very best candidates
    without regard to partisanship for judicial vacancies.
        In this particular case, Judge Rosenbaum was a selection to
    the Federal district court a couple--several years ago and has
    apparently performed in such an outstanding manner that the
    President wanted to select her then for the circuit. And so
    Senator Rubio and I, well knowing her, have not only rendered
    no objection, we affirmatively support Judge Rosenbaum. And she
    will join the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and,
    of course, that is in the southeastern United States.
        She began her legal career in the U.S. Attorney General's
    Honors Program where she worked in the Federal Programs Branch
    of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. She then
    worked in private practice in one of our very finest law
    firms--it is now a nationwide law firm--Holland and Knight. She
    worked as a clerk for a Federal judge, Judge Marcus, United
    States Circuit Court Judge for the Eleventh Circuit, and as an
    Assistant USA for the Southern District. So you see the breadth
    of her experience.
        She then became a magistrate, which is often the route that
    we find now for so many of our Federal judges, because the
    magistrates render such important Federal service. And then in
    2012, we confirmed her to the U.S. district court.
        Judge Rosenbaum also works to inspire the next generation
    of legal minds in her teaching position at the University of
    Miami, where she earned her law degree magna cum laude. She has
    an undergraduate degree from Cornell.
        And she is joined and I have just met with her family, her
    husband, Phil Rothschild; their daughters Rosie and Evin; her
    mom and dad; and her two sisters and their families.
        So it is with heartfelt and enthusiastic support that we
    bring this to the Committee, and I want to particularly thank
    Senator Grassley, because we have been through a number of
    nominees. We have a judicial emergency in two of our three
    districts in Florida, and Senator Grassley, where he had
    questions once on one nominee, unrelated to this, he had an
    open mind to go back and re-evaluate, and I want to say for the
    record, Senator Grassley, how much I appreciate that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator Nelson. We are
    honored and pleased you could join us today. We know that you
    and our colleagues are very busy, and we are glad also you had
    a chance to spend some time with Judge Rosenbaum. Thank you for
    coming.
        Thank you.
        Senator Grassley. Thank you, Senator Nelson, for your kind
    words.
        One more question for Mr. Mastroianni. In 2010, you were
    asked about decriminalizing possession of less than an ounce of
    marijuana. You said that doing so would be ``a step in the
    right direction for trying to get rid of the backlog of cases
    in the court'' and that ``it was putting a strain on a lot of
    people's criminal records which really should not be there.''
        Since you made that statement, you have, in fact, served as
    district attorney. Has your opinion on this issue changed, or
    do you still believe possession of less than an ounce of
    marijuana should be decriminalized?
        Mr. Mastroianni. Well, in Massachusetts, Massachusetts
    moved forward, and that is, in fact, the law now in
    Massachusetts relative to a very small amount. So consistent
    with what I said, that law does follow along with my opinion on
    the issue.
        In developing the opinion on that issue and in developing
    the change in law of Massachusetts, the State and myself
    recognized and examined the time spent by law enforcement in
    investigation of certain offenses and the need for law
    enforcement to spend their time investigating other, perhaps
    arguably more serious offenses. So in reaching that
    determination, it is a balance of the resources that law
    enforcement and prosecution offices have in trying to recognize
    what may need the most minimal attention of each offices in
    trying to allocate resources for the best way to serve public
    safety.
        Senator Grassley. Has your view been reinforced as a result
    of being district attorney?
        Mr. Mastroianni. Well, in my experience as district
    attorney, we have seen--we have seen the number of cases coming
    into the court lessen, but there is still--we are still early
    enough in the process for there to be this transition period
    where both law enforcement and prosecutors are trying to deal
    with and understand the new law relative to decriminalization
    of marijuana, because it affects law enforcement and
    prosecutions on many levels, including levels like motion to
    suppress levels and when can police officers conduct a search
    of someone or a search of someone's car if there should be less
    than a criminal amount of marijuana in the vehicle.
        So those are all legal issues that we continue to work on,
    so we have not reached a level where we say we have achieved
    something and we can tangibly look at that and say this was
    positive, because we are still in the implementation stages.
        Senator Grassley. Ms. Caldwell, I am going to start out
    with the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act, and then
    I am going to move on to Dodd-Frank and whistleblowers so you
    know what is coming up.
        One of the problems with the Department's policy of
    selective enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in
    Colorado and Washington is that the Federal priorities
    identified by the Department are already being negatively
    impacted by the failure of these States to regulate medical
    marijuana. I will use as an example one of those Federal
    priorities is preventing the diversion of marijuana to
    neighboring States. Yet the percentage of marijuana interdicted
    by law enforcement in Iowa that can be traced to Colorado has
    risen from 10 percent in 2010 to 25 percent in 2011 to 36
    percent in 2012.
        So my question: Do you agree with me that the Department
    should establish clear metrics in determining if its policy in
    this area is adequately protecting Federal interests so that,
    if necessary, it can re-evaluate its decision not to challenge
    these State laws?
        Ms. Caldwell. Senator Grassley, I recognize the importance
    of this issue, and I very much appreciate the question.
        Senator Grassley. Thank you.
        Ms. Caldwell. I think that enforcement of the Controlled
    Substances Act is extremely important. I was a narcotics
    prosecutor for several years in New York and saw the havoc that
    drug abuse could have on communities and, frankly, the entire
    New York City was at an all-time high homicide rate when I was
    a prosecutor there. So I have seen this firsthand, and I think
    it is very important.
        I think that--I am not privy to the Department's internal
    decisions about policy or about the priorities that you
    mentioned, Senator. I am generally familiar with the
    priorities, and I think that they represent--they seem to
    represent well the things that should be prosecuted and, as you
    know, one of those priorities is the diversion priority. Other
    priorities are to keep marijuana away from minors, keep it away
    from cartels, keep cartels from taking control of distribution
    businesses in Colorado and Washington and any other State that
    may go in that direction.
        So I think it is extremely important. I look forward to
    learning much more about the issue and about the internal
    thought process if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed to
    this position.
        Senator Grassley. I know that the policy was decided at, I
    assume, a level above what you will be doing, but since you are
    enforcing the laws, I hope that they listen to you; and if they
    say that they are going to make sure that Colorado and
    Washington enforce their laws in order to have this discretion
    of not prosecuting against the Federal law and they are not
    keeping the product within their State, I hope you will re-
    evaluate it, because I think my constituents in Iowa ought to
    be protected under Federal law.
        Another question. I also understand that the Department may
    soon issue a guidance memorandum to make it easier for a
    marijuana business in those two States to use the banking
    system. Two questions, but I will ask one at a time--or, no, I
    have got three or four questions that maybe you can give me a
    short answer to, because I want to know that I am understanding
    Federal law. I just want to make sure about your view on
    Federal law in this area.
        Distribution of marijuana is a Federal crime that is a
    predicate offenses for money-laundering prosecution. Is that
    correct?
        Ms. Caldwell. Correct, Senator.
        Senator Grassley. For example, if a business knowingly
    attempts to engage in a monetary transaction of $10,000 or more
    that are derived from distributing marijuana, that is a
    violation of Federal money-laundering laws. Is that correct?
        Ms. Caldwell. Yes, Your Honor--Senator.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Grassley. Okay.
        Ms. Caldwell. I am in the habit of saying ``Your Honor.'' I
    apologize.
        Senator Grassley. That is okay.
        Senator Blumenthal. I think that is a mistake we commonly
    make.
        Senator Grassley. And if a business knowingly attempts to
    engage in a financial transaction of any amount of funds that
    are in the proceeds of distributing marijuana with the intent
    to promote the carrying on of the distribution of marijuana,
    that is also a violation. Would that be correct?
        Ms. Caldwell. Yes, Senator, that could be a violation.
        Senator Grassley. Okay. And then one more or two more short
    questions before I--well, then I am going to move on to Dodd-
    Frank--or whistleblowers. And the penalties for violating these
    Federal money-laundering laws can be up to 20 years in prison.
        Ms. Caldwell. I have to acknowledge that I have not looked
    recently at the current money-laundering penalties, but that
    sounds potentially correct, yes, sir.
        Senator Grassley. And then, finally, none of that will
    change unless Congress changes the Federal money-laundering
    laws, right?
        Ms. Caldwell. Certainly the laws as they are written will
    be enforced by the Criminal Division.
        Senator Grassley. I think you see what I am leading up to.
    I am afraid that there might be a decision made within the
    Department of these people using the banking system and somehow
    not be convicted of--or prosecuted for money laundering. Let us
    move on.
        You probably--well, no, you would not know, but let me tell
    you, I very much believe whistleblowers are patriotic people,
    and that we would not be able to do our job of oversight or in
    your case prosecution if you did not have some of their
    information.
        In a 2010 article that highlighted the whistleblower
    provisions of Dodd-Frank, you commented that these new
    whistleblower provisions ``will have a huge impact'' and would
    be, continuing the quote, ``very significant.'' You also said,
    ``There are some number of people in large corporations who
    learn about things that could be considered violations of
    securities laws. Now they have a huge motivation to move
    forward.''
        Based upon your extensive experience as a Federal
    prosecutor, how valuable are whistleblowers to Federal law
    enforcement and prosecution efforts?
        Ms. Caldwell. Senator, I appreciate the question. I also
    appreciate your leadership in the area of whistleblowers. I
    agree with you that whistleblowers are often very important
    sources of information. I know that the Dodd-Frank
    whistleblower program has led to very significant numbers of
    whistleblower reports to the Securities and Exchange
    Commission, some of which have turned into significant
    securities cases. I know that in the health care arena and a
    lot of other areas, there are whistleblowers who bring forward
    very significant information, and as a prosecutor, I
    recognize--when I was a prosecutor, I recognized that that
    information could sometimes have a lot of value in bringing a
    prosecution.
        Senator Grassley. Do you believe that providing financial
    incentives to whistleblowers assists in the enforcement of
    Federal laws?
        Ms. Caldwell. Certainly that is the status of the--from
    Dodd-Frank and the False Claims Act. There are financial
    incentives for whistleblowers, and I do think those financial
    incentives have contributed to whistleblowers coming forward.
        Senator Grassley. Yes. Now I am going to move closer to
    home where you will be home, the Department of Justice, and
    nothing you could have anything done with, but I have--I want
    to express to you that I have concerns about how the Department
    of Justice generally treats whistleblowers. I often feel that
    whistleblowers are kind of treated like skunks at a picnic,
    just as an example.
        Will you commit as Assistant Attorney General that you will
    do everything in your power to ensure that these brave
    individuals who come forward, often at personal risk, will be
    treated fairly and that those who retaliate against
    whistleblowers will be held accountable?
        Ms. Caldwell. Senator, I am not familiar with the exact
    procedures of the Department of Justice with regard to
    whistleblowers, but I am confident that there are procedures in
    place, and I am confident that there is a recognition that
    whistleblowers should be protected and should not be retaliated
    against.
        Senator Grassley. Let me say to you that you are in a very
    good position where you are, since you know that whistleblowers
    are very important to getting the job done, that I hope when
    you run into some of this you will be an advocate for them
    within the Department as well as people within corporations or
    elsewhere.
        I am going to now move on to Judge Hendricks. Thank you
    very much, Ms. Caldwell.
        Ms. Caldwell. Thank you, Senator Grassley.
        Senator Grassley. You founded the Bridge Program in your
    home district of South Carolina. You are a pioneer when it
    comes to Federal drug courts. Bridge is among the first Federal
    drug courts in the Nation--at least that is my understanding.
    How do you see the role of drug courts in the Federal
    judiciary?
        Judge Hendricks. Thank you, Senator Grassley. Yes, I was
    honored to be appointed the presiding judge for the district's
    first drug court program, and studies show and my experience
    has shown that for certain offenders, it is a very good thing.
    For those offenders whose criminal activity is fueled by
    addiction, for those offenders it has shown and I have seen
    that it improves their lives, it changes their lives, it
    reduces the cost of prosecution and incarceration. And by
    handling and dealing with their addiction, it also provides for
    community safety and a reduction of recidivism.
        Senator Grassley. As a Federal magistrate, where do you
    draw the line regarding who is admitted to drug court?
        Judge Hendricks. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Well, the
    line in our program is clear. We would not admit in the U.S.
    Attorney's Office--we work with the U.S. Attorney's Office in
    choosing offenders to participate, would not involve--offenders
    who would not be involved with any kind of violent crime or
    crime involving child abuse or pornography.
        Senator Grassley. Before I ask the last question of you, I
    should go back to Ms. Caldwell. It probably sounded like only
    the Justice Department has problems with whistleblowers. It is
    throughout Government, so I am not just accusing the Justice
    Department of mistreating whistleblowers. Too often they are
    mistreated by bureaucracy generally.
        Back to Judge Hendricks. If confirmed as a district judge,
    would you work to expand the Bridge Program in South Carolina's
    Federal courts?
        Judge Hendricks. Senator, if asked to do so and if the rest
    of the district court were so inclined, I would be happy to
    participate in establishing a drug court program in other areas
    of the district.
        Senator Grassley. My last three small questions deal with a
    speech on employment discrimination that you gave for the South
    Carolina Trial Lawyers Association in 2008. You said that,
    ``Summary judgment has a serious hurdle in the Fourth
    Circuit.'' Could you explain what you meant by that statement?
        Judge Hendricks. Thank you. Your Honor--I mean, Senator,
    the standard for summary judgment in the Fourth Circuit is a
    tough one for certain litigants. I think my practice is to
    grant summary judgment motions where the law and the facts are
    clear and support it. But as part of that, there is always a
    danger in dismissing a case too early, and so you try to
    balance both of those equities in approaching motions for
    summary judgment.
        Senator Grassley. Okay. And, last, do you believe that the
    standard for summary judgment should be different for
    employment discrimination cases?
        Judge Hendricks. Senator, I am not sure about that. I think
    there are rights on both sides of the issue, and it would not
    be up to me to make those decisions.
        Senator Grassley. Thank you very much, and thank you for
    your tolerance while I took so much time.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Not at all, Senator
    Grassley. Thank you. By the way, I want to join in expressing
    my appreciation for the work that you do on whistleblowers,
    really a profoundly important cause.
        And thank you to the nominees who have appeared this
    morning and their families. In my personal opinion--I do not
    speak for the Committee--we have the good fortune and honor of
    hearing from some very, very exceptionally qualified
    individuals who I will support, and I really appreciate your
    being here today. And we need you quickly because, as you know,
    we have judicial crises in many parts of our country due to the
    lack of sufficient person power on the bench. Judge Rosenbaum
    made reference to the very heavy workload and caseload in the
    Southern District of Florida. I suspect that is true in each of
    the judicial districts that you have been nominated to fill
    positions.
        And I want to say, Ms. Caldwell, I know that your position
    has been vacant since March 2013. You have been nominated since
    September 2013. I certainly hope that your nomination will be
    expedited.
        I just want to say to my colleague Senator Grassley that I
    think Ms. Caldwell was a little bit modest about her
    prosecutorial record on narcotics and substance abuse in the
    Eastern District of New York, was it not, where you were a
    prosecutor? You did a number of very profoundly significant
    prosecutions while you were there, including Lorenzo Nichols,
    the Chinatown prosecution that you did, a number of extremely
    sensitive and challenging narcotics cases. So nobody knows
    better the importance of both organized crime and narcotics
    along with white-collar crime, as you testified today.
        And on the subject of whistleblowers, I am not sure whether
    I recollect correctly, but did the Enron case involve a
    whistleblower?
        Ms. Caldwell. Yes, it did, Senator, a whistleblower named
    Sherron Watkins.
        Senator Blumenthal. I thought so, and as you know, Ms.
    Caldwell was responsible for the Enron prosecution, so she is
    certainly aware and sensitive to the importance of
    whistleblowers in major prosecutions.
        All of that said, many thanks for being here today. Your
    families should be proud of you, and we are proud that you are
    potentially and hopefully filling very, very important
    positions in our system of justice. Thank you very much.
        I am going to close the hearing, and the record will remain
    open for 1 week. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 10:17 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     NOMINATIONS OF HON. GREGG JEFFREY COSTA, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE
     FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT; TANYA S. CHUTKAN, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE
       FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; HON. M. HANNAH LAUCK, NOMINEE TO BE
       DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA; HON. LEO T.
                   SOROKIN, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
                       THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS; AND
                        JOHN CHARLES CRUDEN, NOMINEE TO
           BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2014

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
    Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Al Franken,
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Franken and Cornyn.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN,
               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

        Senator Franken. This hearing will come to order. Welcome,
    everybody. We will hear from five nominees today, each of whom
    has a very impressive legal career, enjoys widespread support
    from his or her colleagues and home State Members of Congress,
    and is well qualified for the positions to which he or she has
    been nominated.
        Judge Costa has had an impressive career as a Federal
    prosecutor and then as a district court judge.
        Tanya Chutkan spent more than a decade with the D.C. Public
    Defender Service and now focuses on private enforcement of the
    antitrust laws at Boies, Schiller and Flexner.
        Hannah Lauck has spent nearly a decade on the Federal bench
    as a magistrate judge, a position she assumed after a
    successful career as a Federal prosecutor.
        Leo Sorokin has spent nearly a decade on the Federal bench
    as a magistrate judge, too, a position he assumed after service
    with the Federal Public Defender's Office.
        And John Cruden has served at the Environment and Natural
    Resources Division for two decades, working in both Democratic
    and Republican administrations in various capacities, including
    as the Acting Assistant Attorney General. He has also had an
    impressive career in the army, both before and after becoming
    an attorney.
        I hope that we can act quickly and in a bipartisan manner
    to give these nominees an up-or-down vote. I look forward to
    hearing from all of you today.
        Ranking Member Cornyn, it is a great pleasure to chair this
    hearing with you. Would you like to give any opening remarks
    and introduce Judge Costa?

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN,
                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Senator Cornyn. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am
    glad to be joining you on the dais this morning. I think we
    could have--we almost have a quorum of the U.S. Senate present
    today. So I know we have a number of good nominees to hear
    from, and obviously Representative Norton.
        So I want to thank Chairman Leahy for convening today's
    hearing. We know the Founders vested the Senate with the
    authority and responsibility to provide advice and consent on
    the nomination of judges and officers for the executive branch.
    We all take these jobs very seriously, and one good reason to
    do it beyond the constitutional mandate is the fact that many
    of these Federal judges will long survive us in public service.
    They will serve for many, many years to come.
        Today we will hear from five of the President's nominees. I
    want to focus my comments on Judge Costa of the Southern
    District of Texas who was nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court
    of Appeals. He was raised in Texas. Following his graduation
    from Dartmouth--I am not sure how he got to Dartmouth from
    Texas, but to his credit, he attended Dartmouth and 2 years in
    Mississippi with Teach for America. He returned to the
    University of Texas to attend law school, where he was the
    editor-in-chief of the Texas Law Review. He served as a law
    clerk on the D.C. Court of Appeals, a Bristow Fellow in the
    Office of the Solicitor General, and a law clerk to Chief
    Justice William Rehnquist.
        Even more impressive, he came back home to Texas, and after
    practicing in civil litigation for 2 years, he went into public
    service as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District.
    At the Department of Justice, he tried more than 15 cases to
    verdict, argued six cases before the Fifth Circuit, and
    directed the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force. He received a
    departmental award for his prosecution of Allen Stanford.
        Because of these qualifications, the Texas Federal Judicial
    Evaluation Committee evaluated Judge Costa for the district
    court seat that he now occupies, and it was with pride and
    admiration that Senator Hutchison and I recommended him to the
    President for that district court nomination. Now the President
    has given him a promotion after a short time on the trial
    bench, and the President's recent nomination follows hard work
    again of the same Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee, this
    time appointed by Senator Cruz and myself, in close
    consultation with the White House and important input from the
    members of the Texas congressional delegation, like Congressman
    Green, who is here in the audience.
        His nomination is a testament to his hard work and his
    accomplishment, and I know he and his family are proud of his
    accomplishments, as they should be. I look forward to hearing
    from him and the other witnesses here today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Senator.
        Well, we have several Members of Congress who are here
    today to introduce the nominees from their home States, and I
    would like to give each of them an opportunity to go ahead with
    their remarks. I guess we will work our way across starting
    with Senator Udall.

     PRESENTATION OF JOHN CHARLES CRUDEN, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
                  ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
     JUSTICE, BY HON. TOM UDALL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
                               NEW MEXICO

        Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Franken and Senator
    Cornyn, and thank you for the opportunity to introduce John
    Cruden, who has been nominated to be Assistant Attorney General
    for the Environment and Natural Resources Division. I have
    known John for many years. From the time I served as Attorney
    General of New Mexico, John was the chief of the Environmental
    Enforcement Section at the Justice Department. We often worked
    together on important environmental enforcement cases. He also
    joined me for a groundbreaking conference in New Mexico of all
    State Attorneys General where we focused on strengthening
    environmental compliance.
        It has been a pleasure for me to follow John's career. He
    was a highly regarded Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the
    Environment and Natural Resources Division, a strong leader on
    the most important environmental cases, and he also pioneered a
    close working relationship with State Attorneys General,
    promoting joint enforcement and collaborative efforts.
        John has an impressive background. He is a West Point
    graduate and served with distinction in the military. He then
    moved to the U.S. Department of Justice where he was
    responsible for all Federal civil environmental enforcement in
    the United States. He is a highly regarded litigator, one who
    fights for the best interests of the United States, and his
    work has resulted in major settlement negotiations.
        While at the Department, he has received many honors,
    including the Muskie-Chafee Award, the highest honor the
    Environmental Division can bestow. He is the recipient of three
    Presidential rank awards from three different Presidents of
    both parties. John was the first Government attorney to be
    elected and then serve as the president of the District of
    Columbia Bar and the first Government attorney to be elected as
    the Chair of the American Bar Association's Section on
    Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources.
        John left the Department of Justice in 2011 and became
    President of the Environmental Law Institute, a nonpartisan
    research institute with a long and distinguished history,
    providing education and training and some of the leading
    environmental publications in the Nation. The Environmental Law
    Institute gives a series of annual awards honoring individuals
    who benefit the environment through wetland protection. The
    most recent awards ceremony was at the Botanic Garden up here
    on Capitol Hill. John invited me to be the keynote speaker. It
    was a moving event. Local ranchers, community leaders, and city
    engineers were recognized for having a real on-the-ground
    impact. This is John's hallmark, pulling people together to get
    things done. ELI is renowned for its commitment to
    environmental protection, and John has served ably as its
    President.
        Just a further word about ELI. ELI is a forum to find
    environmental ideas and policies that work, not a partisan
    focus, just results.
        I cannot imagine a more qualified individual than John for
    this very important position. He has twice served as Acting
    Assistant Attorney General for the Division. He is a well-known
    expert in environmental law. While he led the Division, it was
    designated ``the best place to work in the Federal
    Government,'' a tribute to his leadership skills.
        I strongly support the nomination of John Cruden. He has
    experience, integrity, and dedication to the rule of law. He
    will make a superb Assistant Attorney General.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Senator Udall, for being here
    this morning. I know you have a lot to do. You are welcome to
    stay for the rest of this, but certainly I know how busy we all
    are, so if you need to duck out, I totally understand.
        Senator Udall. Thank you.
        Senator Franken. We will go now to our Virginia Senators,
    first Senator Warner.

     PRESENTATION OF HON. M. HANNAH LAUCK, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT
      JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, BY HON. MARK R.
           WARNER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

        Senator Warner. Thank you, Chairman Franken and Ranking
    Member Cornyn. It is a real honor for me to be with my good
    friend and colleague Tim Kaine to introduce a fellow Virginian
    as President Obama's nominee to the U.S. District Court for the
    Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Hannah Lauck. If confirmed,
    Hannah will become the first woman judge on the Federal trial
    bench in Richmond.
        Hannah is exceptionally well qualified to carry out the
    duties and responsibilities of a Federal district judge. Hannah
    earned her bachelor's degree magna cum laude, actually also Phi
    Beta Kappa at Wellesley. She also--although since all of us I
    think were at--went to law school in Boston, she did go down
    toward New Haven for law school where she went to Yale and
    graduated in 1991 where she directed the homeless clinic and
    served on the board of the Initiative for Public Interest Law.
        Hannah began her legal career in the Eastern District of
    Virginia, serving as a clerk for Judge Jim Spencer, and I think
    probably Senator Kaine will mention more about that. Judge
    Spencer is extraordinarily well regarded in Richmond for his
    legal acumen, honest nature, and service to community, and will
    actually go to senior status later this year.
        Coming full circle, Hannah has now been nominated to fill
    the seat of Judge Spencer, her mentor and for whom she clerked
    right out of law school.
        From 1994 to 2004, she served as Assistant U.S. Attorney in
    the Eastern District where she handled both civil defense
    matters as well as criminal prosecutions. Following a brief
    stint in the private sector, Hannah became a U.S. magistrate
    judge in the Eastern District of Virginia where she has served
    since 2005.
        As a magistrate judge, she helped begin one of the first
    Federal re-entry courts, which is designed to reduce recidivism
    of individuals released from prison who have serious
    addictions. She is also an active member of the community where
    she has helped the next generation of legal experts. For many
    years she has taught at the University of Richmond, where,
    again, Senator Kaine also is active.
        She has been highly recommended by all the appropriate bar
    associations, and I have gotten to know her over the last few
    years. I think she is extraordinarily well qualified, and I
    appreciate the Chairman's comment as well about the need to
    make sure that we fill all these judicial vacancies. She comes
    extraordinarily highly recommended. I am very proud that the
    President has nominated her, and she comes with my full 100
    percent support.
        And with apologies to my colleagues, I have got a hearing
    upstairs, and apologies to the nominee, but thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, for the opportunity to present this well-qualified
    candidate.
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Senator Warner, for your words
    on Judge Lauck.
        We will go to Senator Kaine.

     PRESENTATION OF HON. M. HANNAH LAUCK, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT
    JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, BY HON. TIM KAINE,
                     A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
                              OF VIRGINIA

        Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member
    Cornyn. It is good to be here with you today on behalf of Judge
    Lauck.
        Mark and I were together at Harvard Law School. I became a
    lawyer and he became a client. He was smarter than me. But--and
    he still is smarter than me. But it is good to be here together
    for this wonderful nominee.
        Judge Lauck, just amplifying a point that Mark made,
    started her legal career after she graduated from Yale Law
    School, working with Judge Spencer, the person whose decision
    to go senior status has led to this opening. Jim Spencer is
    really a towering figure in the Eastern District in the Federal
    judiciary, and she has big shoes to fill. But since she started
    as a law clerk with him, judges kind of treat their law clerks
    almost as their children. They take a parental pride in what
    they do. And I have talked to Judge Spencer about this
    particular occasion. He is very, very proud of his law clerk,
    Hannah, and what she has done during her career.
        Mark did a good job of laying out her professional
    background. She has been, in addition to a law clerk, in
    private practice, a corporate counsel with Genworth in
    Richmond, but her main work before she went on the bench as a
    magistrate was with the U.S. Attorney's Office for 10 years. As
    an Assistant U.S. Attorney, half of her time was focused on
    civil litigation, and then--I think the first half of her
    career was on criminal litigation, the second half on civil
    litigation. Very familiar with the docket in this court.
        As a U.S. magistrate from 2005 to today, Judge Lauck's work
    has involved all Federal misdemeanors. Magistrates in Richmond
    Division try Federal misdemeanors, and they also try any civil
    matter completely and fully with the consent of the parties. So
    she has acted as a judge in virtually the entire range of cases
    that this court handles.
        I will just say this in closing: This is a court I am very
    close to. My wife clerked for a Federal judge on this court
    when she started her legal career, and I was a litigator for 17
    years, and the bulk of my practice was in the Richmond Division
    of the Eastern District of Virginia. It was a happy day for
    that court when I tried my last case in 2001, but I have stayed
    very close to the court. I know the judges, I know the
    bailiffs, I know the court personnel, I know the lawyers, I
    know many of the parties. They speak with uniform plaudits
    about the work that Judge Lauck has done as a magistrate, and
    they have the utmost confidence that she will be a wonderful
    Article III judge in this seat that is being vacated by her
    mentor, Judge Spencer. I recommend her highly.
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Senator Kaine.
        And just for everybody here, as I introduce Senator Warren,
    not everyone in the Senate has an association with Harvard Law.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Franken. Senator Warren.

      PRESENTATION OF HON. LEO T. SOROKIN, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT
      JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, BY HON. ELIZABETH
         WARREN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

        Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ranking
    Member Cornyn, for holding this hearing and for allowing me to
    be here today. I am very pleased to introduce Judge Leo
    Sorokin, who has been nominated to fill a judicial vacancy on
    the district court for the District of Massachusetts.
        Judge Sorokin's nomination came after he was recommended to
    me for this position by the Advisory Committee on Massachusetts
    Judicial Nominations. The advisory committee is comprised of
    distinguished members of the Massachusetts legal community,
    including prominent academics and litigators, and is chaired by
    former Massachusetts District Court Judge Nancy Gertner. The
    committee's recommendation reflects the strength of Judge
    Sorokin's resume, the extraordinary support that he has
    received from those who have worked with him and appeared
    before him, and the conclusion of the Massachusetts legal
    community that he is a superlative nominee.
        Judge Sorokin is joined here today by his wife, Dr. Pam
    Wolf, and their three children--are you back there? There you
    are. Good. Jake, who is a sophomore at Yale; Mikaela, who is a
    senior at Brookline High School; and Sascha, who is in eighth
    grade. And also here today are his sisters, Sharon Sorokin
    James--Sharon, are you back there? Okay, making sure--and Dr.
    Rachel Sorokin Goff and Rachel's husband, James Goff. I know
    they are all tremendously proud to be sharing this moment, and
    we are very proud to have them here.
        Judge Sorokin is a 1983 graduate of Yale and a 1991
    graduate of Columbia Law School, after which he clerked for
    Judge Rya Zobel on the district court in Boston. He served as a
    magistrate judge in Massachusetts since 2005, handling both
    civil and criminal matters for the district court in Boston,
    and he served as chief magistrate judge since 2012. Judge
    Sorokin's track record as a magistrate should give the Senate a
    high level of confidence in his ability to serve as a district
    court judge.
        Judge Sorokin's prior legal career is also very impressive.
    He spent 2 years as an associate in civil litigation practice
    at Mintz Levin in Boston and then 3 years in the Attorney
    General's office before another 8 years as an assistant Federal
    defender in Boston. In that capacity, he handled both trials
    and appeals across a broad swath of Federal criminal law
    matters and all manner of cases from single defendant cases to
    complex multi-defendant cases.
        Judge Sorokin has also truly distinguished himself in his
    time as a magistrate in Massachusetts. In particular, Judge
    Sorokin was principally responsible for the creation of the
    Court-Assisted Recovery Effort, known as CARE, a re-entry
    program that was developed in the District of Massachusetts.
    CARE is designed to help Federal offenders returning from
    prison avoid relapse behavior that might endanger the
    community. Participants are subject to a high degree of
    oversight, including more frequent drug testing, and review of
    their conduct by the courts as often as every week. They
    receive incentives like drug treatment and other resources,
    such as mock job interviews and courses on financial literacy.
    At the same time, they face swift sanctions, potentially
    including immediate jail or time in community service, for any
    noncompliance with the program, such as a failed drug test.
        The CARE model was one of the first re-entry programs in
    the Federal system. To date, nearly half of the district courts
    in the United States have such a court or are considering
    starting one. Observers from all over the country have come to
    Boston to see it in action, and early data on the effectiveness
    of the program is significant. An academic study in 2009
    comparing CARE participants to a control group of similarly
    situated individuals under regular Federal supervision
    concluded that CARE participants were a third less likely to be
    re-arrested in the first year after the program was put into
    effect.
        Done right, programs like CARE reduce crime, improve the
    safety of our communities, and improve the lives of former
    prisoners. They represent the kind of work that can be done to
    improve our justice system when Federal judges have the
    diversity of professional experience to create and facilitate
    innovative solutions to persistent problems.
        Judge Sorokin is a first-rate lawyer with impressive
    credentials and a demonstrated commitment to public service. I
    am proud to have recommended him to President Obama, and I look
    forward to his full approval by this committee and swift
    confirmation by the full U.S. Senate. Thank you very much.
        I apologize, but I am supposed to be in a Banking hearing
    at this same moment, so I will excuse myself.
        Senator Franken. Well, then, go there.
        Senator Warren. I will go. I will, and I apologize to Judge
    Sorokin's family, but I know it is going to be a good hearing.
    Thank you.
        Senator Franken. Thank you for being here, Senator.
        Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton.

            PRESENTATION OF TANYA S. CHUTKAN, NOMINEE TO BE
              DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
              BY HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A DELEGATE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Chairman Franken, Ranking Member
    Cornyn. I appreciate this hearing. I appreciate the opportunity
    to introduce a highly qualified candidate for the United States
    District Court for the District of Columbia, Tanya S. Chutkan.
        Tanya Chutkan is the hiring and recruiting manager of a
    major DC law firm where she engaged in both civil and criminal
    litigation. She is currently representing plaintiffs in
    antitrust cases, which is her major focus, in Federal courts in
    New York, Pennsylvania, California, Tennessee, and Alabama.
        Ms. Chutkan has also had extensive criminal experience at
    the Public Defender Service of the District of Columbia. She
    tried more than 30 cases there, argued two cases on appeal. Ms.
    Chutkan is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law
    School. She also attended George Washington University here. At
    the law school, she served as an associate editor of the Law
    Review and as an Arthur Littleton Legal Writing Fellow.
        Tanya Chutkan has won uniform praise from both her
    colleagues and opposing counsel and judges as well. I strongly
    recommend her based on her intellect and her character and her
    skills and diligence and temperament and her fairness. And, Mr.
    Chairman, if I may note, by coincidence, you are holding this
    hearing during Black History Month, and before the District has
    any courtesy to recommend judges to the President, there had
    only been one African American woman to serve on the district
    court until--here for 32 years. Since we have had this
    courtesy, we have had the second to serve, and Ms. Chutkan, if
    she is approved, as I am sure she will be by virtue of her
    extraordinary qualifications, will be only the second African
    American woman on the bench. We are very proud of what she has
    achieved, and we are very proud of our court that she, I hope
    you agree, should join, because it is a distinguished court,
    and she is, in my view, a highly qualified candidate.
        I recommend her strongly to you for approval by this
    Committee and, of course, for confirmation by the senate.
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Representative Holmes Norton,
    for coming to our side of the Hill, and I know that you are
    busy over there. You are welcome to stay, certainly, but if you
    have to leave, we certainly understand.
        I would now like to ask Judge Gregg Costa to come forward,
    and as is customary--you may keep standing--I will administer
    the oath and swear in the witness.
        Judge Costa, Gregg Cost, do you affirm that the testimony
    you are about to give before the Committee will be the truth,
    the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
        Judge Costa. I do.
        Senator Franken. Thank you. Welcome, Judge Costa, and
    congratulations on your nomination. I would like to give you an
    opportunity to make an opening statement and to acknowledge any
    friends or family who may be here with you today or watching
    from home.

             STATEMENT OF HON. GREGG JEFFREY COSTA, NOMINEE
               TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

        Judge Costa. Thank you, Senator Franken, and thank you for
    presiding today. Thank you, Senator Cornyn, for your kind
    introduction, for supporting me for a second time. I also want
    to thank Senator Cruz and thank the Federal Judiciary
    Evaluation Committee that both Senator Cornyn and Senator Cruz
    have set up in Texas, which has treated me very fairly and
    supported me for a second time.
        I certainly want to thank President Obama for nominating--
    this great honor of a second nomination, and I have someone
    here today as well who--a public official who is really the one
    who started me out on this path. That is Representative Al
    Green from Houston. I did not know the Congressman until a few
    years ago when he set up this process to start considering
    judicial nominees, and the fact that he started me down this
    path is something I will always be grateful for.
        I do want to introduce my family who is here. A week or two
    ago, when I found out about this hearing, I sent my mother a
    very brief email that just said, ``The White House called. The
    hearing is set for 2/25.'' And my mother and father were at a
    restaurant when she got the email, and she said, ``Wow, it is
    pretty remarkable when your son sends an email saying the White
    House called.'' And that really did drive home for me what an
    amazing journey this has been and these amazing opportunities I
    have had. And as I said when I was sworn in to the district
    court bench, I think these amazing opportunities I have been
    able to enjoy speaks not just to the greatness of our country
    but to my mother and father's greatness as parents.
        My wife, Jennifer, my biggest supporter and my best friend,
    is here.
        And then that brings me to the two people who are probably
    the biggest beneficiaries of my second nomination. That is my
    two boys, Elijah and Joshua, because it is giving them an
    opportunity to redeem their behavior from the last hearing they
    attended.
        [Laughter.]
        Judge Costa. I will not know until I watch the video later
    today if they have improved.
        And then making her debut in the Senate today is my 4-year-
    old daughter, Rebekah, but I have no concerns whatsoever about
    her behavior.
        Senator Franken, being from Minnesota, this morning's snow
    was probably no big deal to you, but it was the first time my
    kids on the way over here had ever seen snow falling from the
    sky. So I promise you at least for them this morning's snow is
    going to be far more memorable than anything I say this
    morning.
        But with that, I am ready to take the Committee's
    questions.
        [The biographical information of Judge Costa appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Senator Franken. Well, thank you, and welcome to your
    family.
        Judge Costa, it is somewhat customary for this Committee to
    ask nominees to describe their judicial philosophies. I take
    this to mean the approach that you will take when deciding
    close cases, cases where the law is not quite as clear or where
    the evidentiary record is disputed. I would like to give you a
    chance to address that and, in particular, what we can expect
    of you and what litigants can expect of you when you are
    confirmed to the court of appeals.
        Judge Costa. Thank you for the question, Senator Franken.
    When I was a lawyer, the thing I most enjoyed about being in
    front of judges was when they approached the case with an open
    mind, when you did not think they brought preconceived notions
    to the case before they heard from the lawyers or looked at the
    evidence. And so I think the appropriate role of a judge is to
    view each case with an open mind and base the decision on the
    facts and law in that case.
        In cases when there is not a precedent directly on point
    that you referred to, I think there are still, you know,
    standard, commonly accepted methods of interpretation that a
    judge can rely on to find what the appropriate answer is for
    that case.
        Senator Franken. Well, congratulations on your second
    nomination in such a close time period. When you were being
    considered for your current position at the district court,
    Senator Grassley submitted a written question for the record in
    which he asked you about judicial temperament. You gave an
    answer that included open-mindedness. This is what you said.
    You said, ``The most important elements of judicial temperament
    are open-mindedness, respect for all parties, attorneys and
    other participants in the judicial process, and humility.''
        Now you have been on the bench for nearly 2 years. How
    would you respond to the same question? How has your
    experience--has it in any way changed your view on that
    question?
        Judge Costa. I do not think it has. All those qualities I
    think are still very important for a judge to have, and I have
    worked hard to try and exhibit those.
        I think the one thing from the experience I have had thus
    far that I might add to that is, as a Federal judge, you really
    need a strong work ethic, because if you want to be open-
    minded, if you want to give fair consideration to the parties'
    arguments in each case, there are a lot of cases, and there is
    a lot of paper that gets filed. And so it is a lot of work to
    take the time to read everything and make sure everyone has got
    a fair hearing.
        I know at the district court it is an incredibly demanding
    job. I know at the circuit, if I were fortunate enough to be
    confirmed, it would be as well. I think the Fifth Circuit has
    the second busiest docket behind the Ninth. But it is something
    I have been able to do during my time on the district bench,
    and I would hope to do the same, if confirmed.
        Senator Franken. So what you are saying is that 2 years ago
    you had no idea how hard you would be working.
        [Laughter.]
        Judge Costa. Some idea, but until it really hits you,
    right?
        Senator Franken. Judge Costa, you clerked for Judge
    Randolph and Justice Rehnquist, and you have written about
    Justice Marshall. Are there any judges or Justices who you
    particularly admire, someone whom you might consider a role
    model?
        Judge Costa. Well, certainly the two judges I clerked for I
    learned an amazing amount from, as I hope my law clerks have
    learned something from me. And in many ways, the way I run my
    chambers, my writing style I think mirrors some of what I
    learned from Judge Randolph and Chief Justice Rehnquist. I
    think Justice Ginsburg has said Chief Justice Rehnquist was the
    best boss she ever had. He was my boss in a very different
    capacity than he was her boss, but I would echo her sentiment.
    So I look to both of them.
        I also think given that I am being considered for the Fifth
    Circuit, it is worth mentioning there were four judges,
    including John Minor Wisdom, who the Fifth Circuit building in
    New Orleans is named for--three of them were Eisenhower
    appointees. They served during the 1960s. It fell to them the
    task of applying Brown v. Board of Education on the ground in
    the South. And they did so and applied the law--they were bound
    as lower court judges to apply the law, and they did so in the
    face of great social ostracism and sometimes threats of
    violence. And so I think their fidelity to the rule of law in
    very difficult circumstances is also a great example.
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Judge Costa. I have heard about
    Judge Wisdom. How do you spell ``Minor'' in Wisdom?
        Judge Costa. M-I-N-O-R. A great judge name--Judge Wisdom.
        Senator Franken. But Minor Wisdom is just odd.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Franken. It always struck as very Southern in some
    way. I do not know why.
        Senator Cornyn.
        Senator Cornyn. It is a sign of judicial humility.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cornyn. I could be wrong, Chairman Franken, but I
    believe Senator Alexander clerked on the Fifth Circuit, and I
    want to say he clerked for Judge Wisdom. I could be wrong
    there.
        Senator Franken. I think Senator Sessions may have as well.
    Well, anyway.
        Senator Cornyn. So, Judge Costa, you and I are well
    acquainted with one another professionally, and I am glad to
    see you here today sitting in this seat at long last now for
    this hearing.
        Just by way of some description, you alluded to the Federal
    Judicial Evaluation Committee process, and just to put a little
    meat on the bones, this is a bipartisan group of what I think
    are probably the top practitioners in the State to evaluate the
    professional qualifications and credentials of the candidates.
    And, of course, we work with the Texas congressional
    delegation, like Congressman Green and others, to make sure
    that we get the best talent to actually apply for these
    benches.
        But could you describe a little bit about your interaction
    with the Federal Judicial Evaluation Commission, both when you
    applied for the district bench as well as the court of appeals?
        Judge Costa. Absolutely. On both occasions, they have a
    very open process. It is well publicized when they are
    accepting applications. Any lawyer in the State can submit an
    application, and then a certain number are notified who are
    selected for interviews. And both times I met with the full
    committee for interviews. They asked tough but fair questions.
    On the committee are some of the most respected lawyers in the
    State. When I was there last time, I was thinking how much they
    could have been billing if you added up all 35 members while I
    was sitting there spouting off on the law.
        But, again, they take this very seriously, and it is
    refreshing to see that these lawyers who have so many other
    important things to do put so much care into making sure that
    there are people on the Federal bench who are well suited to
    being there.
        Senator Cornyn. Well, you appreciated, I know, that the
    legal profession is made up of people who obviously advocate
    for clients and are not necessarily advocating for a cause. And
    what the legal profession depends on and what I believe the
    bedrock of America depends on is somebody at some point who is
    going to call balls and strikes and who is going to apply the
    law as written or based on the precedents established by the
    U.S. Supreme Court or superior court. Is that something that
    you are committed to doing?
        Judge Costa. Certainly, Senator, and I think my record in
    the year and a half or so that I have been on the Federal bench
    hopefully shows that. Judges are not here to make policy. We
    leave that to you all and to the President. Our job is to apply
    and interpret the law.
        Senator Cornyn. Well, the policymaking can get pretty messy
    sometimes, but I appreciate your answer.
        So let me talk about the 164 memoranda, opinions, and
    orders that you have written since you have been on the
    district bench. I note that the Fifth Circuit has reversed
    three of those, which, by my count, is not a bad record. I
    remember when I was in private practice, somebody pointed out
    that the only lawyers who never lose a case are those who never
    try a case. And I think there is probably an analogue here for
    judges, and obviously you call the balls and strikes in your
    capacity as a district judge, but it is the appellate court's
    responsibility to do its independent review of your work. And I
    would just note that 3 out of 164 ain't bad.
        But could you tell me and tell the Committee what, if
    anything, you learned from the reversals? Sometimes I think we
    learn less when people agree with us than when people disagree
    with us.
        Judge Costa. Thank you for the question, Senator Cornyn. We
    said the same thing about trial lawyers losing cases in the
    U.S. Attorney's Office, and I have often said--I think I had
    two defendants who got a mixed verdict or were acquitted, and I
    always learned more as a trial lawyer in those two instances
    than I did when you win and you go home and think you did
    everything great.
        And I think, you know, obviously the appellate court is
    there to have three judges look at an issue. The appellate
    court often has fuller briefing, often has more time to
    consider an issue. So I obviously give great weight to what the
    appellate court thinks and, you know, I review that and respond
    in future opinions I have accordingly based on the issues that
    they thought were incorrectly decided.
        Senator Cornyn. Well, Judge Costa, I am happy to support
    your nomination, and I would say that in a Washington
    environment where very often there is polarization and where
    the White House and the Congress is at loggerheads, this is one
    area where we have been able to come together, and I think
    thanks to your hard work and outstanding record and commitment
    to the rule of law, we have been able to come together and
    agree on your nomination. So I just want to say congratulations
    to you and your family, and I look forward to your confirmation
    and to your outstanding record of public service now in the
    Fifth Circuit.
        Judge Costa. Thank you.
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. I would like to
    echo that, and you are dismissed.
        Judge Costa. Thank you, Senator. We will go see the snow.
        Senator Franken. The kids behaved very well.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Franken. I would now like to ask Tanya Chutkan, Leo
    Sorokin, Hannah Lauck, and John Cruden to come to the witness
    table, and you can remain standing.
        Please remain standing to be sworn. Do you affirm that the
    testimony you are about to give before the Committee will be
    the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
    you God?
        Ms. Chutkan. I do.
        Judge Lauck. I do.
        Judge Sorokin. I do.
        Mr. Cruden. I do.
        Senator Franken. Thank you. Please be seated.
        Welcome and congratulations to you all on your nominations.
    I would like to give you each an opportunity to make an opening
    statement and to acknowledge any friends or family who may be
    here with you or watching from home.
        We will start with Ms. Chutkan.

    STATEMENT OF TANYA S. CHUTKAN, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
                        THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

        Ms. Chutkan. Good morning. Thank you very much, Senator
    Franken and Ranking Member Cornyn, for holding this hearing
    today. I realize that a tremendous amount of effort goes into
    preparing this, and I thank you and your staffs for doing that.
        I also want to thank Congresswoman Holmes Norton for her
    very kind introduction and for the work her Judicial
    Nominations Commission did in reviewing my materials and the
    honor they do me in recommending me for this nomination.
        I would like to acknowledge with me here today this morning
    my husband, Peter Krauthamer, who--we met years ago as young
    public defenders and whose service on the D.C. superior court
    bench has been an example and inspiration for me. And my two
    sons, Nicholas and Max Krauthamer, who are delighted to be
    missing school to be here today.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Chutkan. It is not always easy being the child of two
    trial lawyers or a trial lawyer and a judge or, worse yet, two
    judges, but they have become very effective advocates for
    themselves.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Chutkan. Quite skillful.
        I would like to thank President Obama for nominating me. He
    has given me a great honor, and it is one I hope to uphold and
    live up to.
        I want to thank my--here today with me, my sister, Dr.
    Robynne Chutkan, who is here, and with her husband, Eric Mann,
    who is from the Department of Homeland Security. My brother,
    Dr. Norman Chutkan, could not be here today. He is actually
    performing surgery right now, but I know if he could be here,
    he would.
        And my wonderful, wonderful parents, Dr. Winston Chutkan
    and Noelle Chutkan, who could not be here today, but I am sure
    are watching on a webcast. My parents have been a steadfast
    source of love and encouragement and support for all three of
    their children, and any success that we have achieved has
    really been due to the wonderful example they have set for us.
    So I am thinking of them today.
        I want to thank my mother-in-law, my father-in-law and his
    wife, my many sister- and brother-in-laws who are watching from
    near and far; my 12 nieces and nephews, who should all be in
    school today; colleagues from both my law firm of Boies,
    Schiller and Flexner, including my partner, William Isaacson,
    who is here today; and colleagues from the Public Defender
    Service, neighbors, and friends who are here today and watching
    by webcast. Thank you all.
        [The biographical information of Ms. Chutkan appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Ms. Chutkan.
        Judge Lauck.

    STATEMENT OF HON. M. HANNAH LAUCK, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE
                  FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

        Judge Lauck. Thank you, Chair, Senator Franken. I also want
    to thank Ranking Member Cornyn for the opportunity to appear in
    front of this Committee and to the Committee for organizing
    this hearing for us.
        I want to thank President Obama for the honor of the
    nomination and especially thank Senators Warner and Kaine for
    their gracious words of introduction.
        I would like to introduce my family. My husband of 20 years
    is here, Jay Wood. He is my best friend. He is the source of
    all happiness in my life and a terrific father and teacher.
        Our son is here, Frost Wood. He is a ninth grader in his
    father's school and has permission to be here today, both from
    his father and from the other teachers in the school.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Franken. He did not get permission from me.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Franken. From the Chair, but okay.
        Judge Lauck. They are having a great year because not only
    are they missing school today, they have had a lot of snow
    days. This is pretty much the winter of excellence for them in
    academia.
        My daughter, Addie Wood, is here. She is a seventh grader
    in the sister school where Jay teaches.
        Our parents, many of them have passed, including my mother,
    who was a Minnesotan. But we are hoping that Jay's father, Hank
    Wood, is successfully manipulating the webcast today, and there
    is a good chance of that.
        With us in the room are my brother, Jett Lauck. My sister,
    Dede Cockerill, Dede has come in from Texas and has brought a
    Texan delegation with her. Her husband, Jim Cockerill, is in
    Texas still. My niece, Sarah Jones, may be gone because she has
    a little baby, Ella, whom she was gracious enough to bring just
    a few weeks after birth. I do not know if they are back here
    yet.
        Senator Franken. I see a mother with a little baby.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Franken. She is kind of blond.
        Judge Lauck. Yes.
        Senator Franken. Is that her?
        Judge Lauck. That would be it. And I would like to note for
    the record I certainly am a great aunt.
        With Sarah is her husband, Brad, who is a graduate of SMU
    and works in the House across the way.
        I also have numbers of supporters from--colleagues from
    work, good, long, dear friends who have taken the effort to
    come here, including law school friends.
        Our cousins are here, Ted Bond and Ashley Silverberg, and
    we have members from our courthouse, which is a family in the
    Eastern District. My law clerk, L.A. Kirkendahl, is here, and
    Kristen Kirtsos, and I know that Judge Spencer is here in
    spirit, and I appreciate the opportunity at all to be
    associated with the seat that he has occupied.
        And I look forward to your questions.
        [The biographical information of Judge Lauck appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Judge, and welcome to all
    family members and also to Ms. Chutkan's family.
        Judge Sorokin.

    STATEMENT OF HON. LEO. T. SOROKIN, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE
                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

        Judge Sorokin. Thank you, Senator. I would like to thank
    you and the other Members of the Committee for convening this
    hearing; President Obama for the high honor and humbling honor
    of the nomination to the district court; Senator Warren for her
    kind words regarding me, her support in this process; and also
    Senator Markey, who I know is not here today but who has also
    been supportive of my nomination.
        As Senator Warren mentioned, I am joined by my wife, who
    has been the love of my life for over 30 years; our children,
    who are here today, relishing, I think, the opportunity to miss
    school; my sisters, who Senator Warren mentioned; my brother-
    in-law, Jim; and from your neck of the woods, Senator, I know
    on the webcast watching is my sister-in-law, brother-in-law,
    and their three children, who live in Rushford, Minnesota, on
    their farm.
        Two people who I would just like to briefly acknowledge who
    are not here are my parents, my mother and father, proud
    graduates of the University of Connecticut School of Law in
    1950 and 1953, respectively. Without them I would not sit here
    today. They taught me the importance of hard work, character,
    and commitment to the rule of law, and though I know that they
    are saddened--or at least I am, that they are not here to share
    this moment with me, I am sure that they are beaming with pride
    looking down upon us from the heavens.
        Senator Franken. I am sure they are.
        Judge Sorokin. So I thank you.
        [The biographical information of Judge Sorokin appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Senator Franken. Thank you, and welcome to your family and
    friends.
        Mr. Cruden.

              STATEMENT OF JOHN CHARLES CRUDEN, NOMINEE TO
             BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT
                               OF JUSTICE

        Mr. Cruden. Senator Franken, Senator Cornyn, thank you so
    much for chairing this, and I am really honored not just by the
    President's nomination and the support I received from the
    Attorney General, I am honored to be on this panel with judges
    that, if I am so lucky to be confirmed, I may be in front of at
    some time in my life.
        I also want to thank Senator Udall, who is a superb Senator
    but was a wonderful Attorney General, and that was where I
    first encountered him.
        Senator Udall told you a bit about my background, and it is
    relevant to some of the people that are in the audience
    supporting me today. It has been a somewhat unique career
    trajectory. I graduated from West Point, and in the audience
    today I have some of the individuals who graduated with me.
        In my office, on the wall of my office is a print of the
    plains of West Point. Superimposed on that are the names of my
    classmates who died in Vietnam, and every morning I go into the
    office and I see the real price but also the importance of
    service and public service, but also my warm salute to those
    men and women in uniform who continue to do extraordinary
    things for the Nation.
        I was fortunate leaving West Point to be selected to be the
    chief of the Environmental Enforcement Section, which Senator
    Udall already pointed out that is how we met. I was there also
    joined by extraordinary individuals, professionals who worked
    very hard every day promoting the rule of law, advancing the
    environment, and many of them are here today also in support of
    me, and I am so thankful for their public service and their
    friendship. It means a lot to me. Those career professionals in
    the Environment Division are really the backbone of that
    organization.
        Listening on webcast, I know, because I have had the
    fortune of working with Federal officials and so many agencies
    across the United States, agencies that the Department of
    Justice served, but I have also had the chance of working with
    Attorneys General and local attorneys on efforts of advancing
    the environment, they have been very supportive, and I thank
    all of them.
        And also in the audience today are individuals who served
    with me in two other ways. I was fortunate enough to be elected
    by my peers to be the president of the District of Columbia Bar
    Association, and then later the American Bar Association's
    Section of Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources, and
    there are individuals here from those two great organizations
    who dedicate their valuable time to advancing the rule of law
    and supporting attorneys.
        But like others on the--here before you today, I would not
    be here today, clearly would not be here today without others
    that I do want to single out. Almost immediately after I
    graduated from West Point--maybe I waited a few days--I married
    my wife, Sharon, who is here today. She is a great professional
    in her own right, giving her life to teaching learning-disabled
    young people.
        Wonderful professionals, I am so proud of my daughters,
    Kristen and Heather. They are here with their husbands, Major
    Scott Campbell and Travis Mason, but now I am at the stage of
    my life where I have been gifted with other things, and I have
    four grandchildren. They are boys and girls. With us today are
    Ryan Mason and Jonathan Mason. Watching us and here in spirit
    are Lauren Campbell and Katelyn Campbell, two extraordinary
    young girls.
        So thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
    today. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The biographical information of Mr. Cruden appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Senator Franken. Well, welcome to all your family and
    grandchildren, the grandchildren watching, and thank you for
    your service. I will start the questioning with you, Mr.
    Cruden.
        In your view, what are the most pressing challenges facing
    the Environment and Natural Resources Division today? And how
    will you address those challenges?
        Mr. Cruden. Thank you, Senator. Although I served in the
    Environment Division for a number of years, I have been out of
    it now for 3 years in an environmental organization, and so as
    you would expect, the very first thing I would do going back to
    the Division would be learning and listening to all of those,
    so I can tell you in that learning and listening, here are
    areas that I will be clearly focusing on: Over half of the
    Division's resources are dedicated to environmental issues,
    either enforcing our Nation's laws or defending agency
    policies, and I want to look at that. I want to advance those
    things. It is extraordinarily important to me.
        Another whole part of the Division's responsibilities is as
    a stewardship for natural resources, our public lands, our
    national parks. And I want to work on that. It always has
    litigation and has litigation today. I need to familiarize
    myself with that, but I want to make sure that we are using our
    resources wisely.
        And then a third area that I intend to concentrate on as
    well is there is a unique responsibility the Division has for
    Native American rights. They both represent tribes through the
    Department of Interior, but they also have litigation with
    tribes of the United States. It is an area where I have some
    familiarity because I have met with tribal leaders, but not a
    lot. And so I will need to learn. I will need to have that
    experience and expertise. I will need to meet with tribal
    members, as I will need to meet with State Attorneys General to
    actually not only figure out how best to use those priorities
    but, to answer better your question, how best do I implement
    the enormous responsibilities of the Environment and Natural
    Resources Division.
        Senator Franken. Thank you for that thoughtful response.
        It is going to be the rest of you, to be judges--or judges
    already and about to be a judge, hopefully. Ms. Chutkan, Judge
    Sorokin, and Judge Lauck, I would like to ask you the same
    question I asked Judge Costa, which is to please describe your
    judicial philosophy, the approach that you would take in
    deciding close cases, what we can expect of you, what litigants
    can expect of you when you are confirmed as a Federal district
    court judge. We will start with Ms. Chutkan.
        Ms. Chutkan. Thank you, Senator. Like Judge Costa, as a
    trial lawyer, both at the Public Defender Service and in my
    career in private practice, I have had the opportunity and the
    privilege to practice before a wide variety of judges, both in
    Federal and State courts, and really the ideal judge has always
    been for me one who is open-minded, fair, and prepared. And
    that would be my philosophy, and that would be the guiding
    principles for me as a judge.
        Impartiality is bedrock. Listening to both sides, treating
    all people who come before me, be they individuals or
    corporations, with respect and with dignity, and working very
    hard to review all relevant materials, do my own research, be
    prepared so that when I listen to the arguments of both sides,
    I am aware of the relevant case law and of the facts. And in
    the close cases, to really pay close attention to the language
    of the statute, if I am interpreting a statute, to the facts,
    to the binding precedent of the Supreme Court and the D.C.
    Circuit, and to treat each case individually and on its own
    merits, and apply the law to the facts without fair or favor or
    partiality to any side.
        Senator Franken. Thank you for that answer.
        Judge Lauck, I would like to nominate you not to use that
    answer.
        [Laughter.]
        Judge Lauck. That is the universe of good judging that I
    will do my best to respond. Obviously Ms. Chutkan has an
    impressive description of what a good judge should be. I cannot
    say that I have a word that describes my philosophy. What I
    have tried to do in my years as a magistrate judge is to be
    both predictable and persuadable.
        The predictability flows from following the rule of law,
    applying precedent clearly, applying the rules of procedure in
    an accurate and speedy manner.
        The persuadability stems from some of what Ms. Chutkan
    talked about, which is being open-minded, creating an
    atmosphere in which everyone who walks in the courtroom feels
    as if they have a fair shot, listening carefully to what the
    litigants are trying, the case that they are bringing to you,
    so that whatever decision you reach and however it comes down,
    the individuals feel fairly heard and they know that the law
    has been fairly and impartially applied.
        Senator Franken. Thank you.
        Judge Sorokin.
        Judge Sorokin. Thank you. The litigants I think could
    expect that I would approach every case with an open mind; that
    I would come to court prepared, having reviewed carefully all
    the submissions that they had provided me; that I would treat
    them both with civility and respect; and that I would endeavor
    to render both a prompt decision and a decision that I could
    clearly explain to the parties so that they understood not only
    what the result was but why I was reaching the result that I
    had reached.
        In terms of resolving close cases, what I would attempt to
    do is to identify exactly what it is in dispute between the
    parties and then look at both the general binding precedent
    from the Supreme Court and the First Circuit governing the
    question, the methodology to approach the question, analogous
    case law related to the issue before me, even if it is not
    deciding the issue before me, and then render an impartial
    decision under the law to the narrow question before me.
        Senator Franken. Thanks to all of you for that.
        I want to talk a little bit about recidivism. Judge Lauck,
    you started a Second Chance Offender Rehabilitation Effort
    court in 2007, and, Judge Sorokin, you have done work with the
    Massachusetts drug re-entry court program. I have long
    advocated for mental health courts and drug courts as
    alternatives to traditional incarceration in appropriate cases.
        Can each of you tell the Committee about your work in this
    area and whether you have identified effective ways to reduce
    recidivism and what those are?
        Ms. Chutkan. Thanks, Senator. I have not done a tremendous
    amount of work on recidivism in my practice.
        Senator Franken. Okay.
        Ms. Chutkan. But I can tell you that from my time as a
    public defender--and I spent 11 years as a public defender--I
    found that clients--I was less likely to see clients a second
    or third time if there were adequate supports for them in the
    community, especially drug treatment and assistance in
    transitioning back into society so that they would have the
    support and resources they needed so that they would not fall
    back into the kind of behavior that led them into the criminal
    justice system in the first place.
        So I am a big proponent of programs to reduce recidivism.
        Senator Franken. Judge Lauck, you started an anti-
    recidivism program. Can you tell me about it and what your
    findings are?
        Judge Lauck. Yes, thank you, Mr. Senator. We have begun the
    SCORE program. It is called SCORE, a Second Chance Offender
    Rehabilitation Effort, and in our court we--it is a re-entry
    program so it is individuals who have already been convicted
    and are on supervised release. And the goal of this program is
    to identify individuals who are highly addicted to give them
    the skills to stop using, to become sober, but also other life
    skills. And I think one of the greater aspects of the success
    of the SCORE program has been the life skills of education,
    getting a GED, getting a driver's license, getting employed.
    All of those things have had, I think, a measurable effect on
    reducing recidivism with those individuals and leading them to
    a successful and employed and sober life within our community.
        It has also the benefit of saving resources for individuals
    who are not going back into the jail system. I think it overall
    has a very positive effect on the community at large.
        Senator Franken. Thank you for that work.
        Judge Sorokin.
        Judge Sorokin. Thank you. Senator, in 2006 our district
    started something called the ``Court-Assisted Recovery
    Effort.'' Similar to the program that Judge Lauck mentioned,
    our program is focused on individuals who are returning from
    Federal prison onto supervised release who have serious drug--
    histories of drug addiction and drug abuse. And the aim of the
    program is to help the participants first to create and then to
    maintain a sober, employed, and law-abiding life.
        We have found that by combining the public health approach
    of treatment with the criminal justice approach of
    accountability together, we are able to encourage and achieve
    success with these individuals returning from Federal prison.
    And as Senator Warren mentioned, we have studied it and found
    that we have effectively reduced recidivism. We have not
    studied the resource savings, but anecdotally it does appear
    that it is certainly cheaper for people in supervised release
    to provide them treatment than to jail them.
        Senator Franken. And they become more productive and on and
    on.
        Well, I want to thank all of you, and I hope we get you
    confirmed as soon as possible. And I would like to congratulate
    you and your loved ones and family and friends who have come
    today.
        We will hold the record open for 1 week for submissions of
    questions for the witnesses and other materials. This hearing
    is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]